Skip to main content

Full text of "Vietnam women's memorial : hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks, and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress, second session on S. 2042 ... February 23, 1988"

See other formats


S. Hrg. 100-617 



VIETNAM WOMEN'S MEMORIAL 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PAEKS AND FORESTS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATUEAL RESOUECES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 

S. 2042 S«PP¥GLIST# 




"^■MP 



TO AUTHORIZE THE VIETNAM WOMEN'S MEMORIAL PROJECT, INC., TO 
CONSTRUCT A STATUE AT THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL IN 
HONOR AND RECOGNITION OF THE WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES 
WHO SERVED IN THE VIETNAM CONFLICT 



FEBRUARY 23, 1988 




'GOV DOCS 
KF 

26 
.E5583 

1988e 



( 



Research 
Library , 



Printed for the use of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON : 1988 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 



S. Hrg. 100-617 

VIETNAM WOMEN'S MEMORIAL 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 



S. 2042 MPfm L!ST#. 




TO AUTHORIZE THE VIETNAM WOMEN'S MEMORIAL PROJECT, INC., TO 
CONSTRUCT A STATUE AT THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL IN 
HONOR AND RECOGNITION OF THE WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES 
WHO SERVED IN THE VIETNAM CONFLICT 



FEBRUARY 23, 1988 




:;ov DOCS 

'^** Printed for the use of the 

t6 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

E5583 

I988e 



Research]- 
Libraryj 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON : 1988 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Ck>ngre8sional Sales Office 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 



BostoBi P^.;feJ'c; y^rary 

,, MiA 02116 




COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana, Chairman 
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho 

WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon 

HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut 

JOHN MELCHER, Montana PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado DON NICKLES, Oklahoma 

WYCHE FOWLER, Jr., Georgia CHIC HECHT, Nevada 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota DANIEL J. EVANS, Washington 

Daryl H. Owen, Staff Director 

D. Michael Harvey, Chief Counsel 

Frank M. Gushing, Staff Director for the Minority 

Gary G. Ellsworth, Chief Counsel for the Minority 



" :p r*^: 



Subcommittee on Pubuc Lands, National Parks and Forests 

■"' '  DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas, Chairman 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Vice Chairman 
JOHN MELCHER, Montana MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming 

BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut 

TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon 

WYCHE FOWLER, Jr., Georgia PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

CHIC HECHT, Nevada 
J. Bennett Johnston and James A. McClure are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 

Thomas B. Williams, Senior Professional Staff Member 
EuzABETH J. NoRCROSS, Professional Staff Member 

(II) 



CONTENTS 

Page 

S. 2042 3 

STATEMENTS 

Bane, Col. Mary Evelyn, USMC (Retired), Arlington, VA 124 

Boulay, Donna-Marie, Chairman, Vietnam Women's Memorial Project 89 

Brown, J. Carter, Chairman, Commission of Fine Arts 16 

Bumpers, Hon. Dale, U.S. Senator from Arkansas 1 

Cranston, Hon. Alan, U.S. Senator from California 140 

Doubek, Robert W., former executive director and project director, Vietnam 

Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc 108 

Durenberger, Hon. Dave, U.S. Senator from Minnesota 7 

Evans, Diane, on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc 83 

Griffith, Reginald W., Executive Director, National Capital Planning Commis- 
sion 21 

Jamison, Evangeline, LTC (U.S. Army, Retired), member board of directors, 

Vietnam Women's Memorial Project 93 

Johnson, Karen K., Little Rock, AR 99 

Kilgus, Col. Donald W., USAF (Retired), Alexandria, VA 126 

Lin, Maya, New York, NY 122 

Magill, James N., director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign 

Wars of the United States 72 

Mastran, Shelley S., Great Falls, VA 134 

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland 147 

Mott, William Penn, Jr., Director, National Park Service, Department of the 

Interior 13 

Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska 10 

Riggin, E. Philip, director, National Legislative Commission, The American 

Legion 72 

Schultz, Richard F., associate national legislative director, Disabled American 

Veterans 79 

Stark, Hon. Fortney H. (Pete), U.S. Representative from California 154 

Stout, Mary R., national president, Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc 83 

Stoy, Diane B., Arlington, VA 125 

Wheeler, John P., Ill, chairman, Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc 29 

(III) 



VIETNAM WOMEN'S MEMORIAL 



TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1988 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Pubuc Lands, 

National Parks and Forests, 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

Washington, DC. 
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room 
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office building, Hon. Dale Bumpers presid- 
ing. 
Senator Bumpers. The subcommittee will come to order. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DALE BUMPERS, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator Bumpers. In the summer of 1980, after a great deal of 
controversy. Congress passed legislation which authorized the 
building of a memorial to commemorate Vietnam veterans. Public 
Law 96-297 provided that the memorial would be built "in honor 
and recognition of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the 
United States who served in Vietnam." 

Late that same year a competition for the design of the memorial 
was won by a young architectural student, Maya Lin. It called for 
the names of 58,000 men and women who were killed in the war to 
be etched into two 250 foot slabs of polished black granite which 
would intersect at an obtuse angle. The ten foot walls of the memo- 
rial would be imbedded beneath the ground. 

The memorial design became a source of controversy, and the 
design was ultimately altered. In the fall of 1982, the original walls 
of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial were completed and dedicated. 
Two years later, Frederick Hart's statue of three soldiers and the 
flag pole were added nearby. 

Since that time, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial has attracted 
over 20 million visitors, few of whom left without being touched by 
its moving simplicity and the contemplative mood it engenders. 

But controversy surrounding the design of the memorial has con- 
tinued. There are those who argue that the memorial is not com- 
plete and does not adequately represent all those who served in 
Vietnam. 

The purpose of the hearing today before the Subcommittee on 
Public Lands, National Parks and Forests is to hear testimony on 
S. 2042, a bill to authorize the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, 
Inc., to construct a statue within the 2.2 acre Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial site in honor and recognition of the women of the United 
States who served in the Vietnam war. 

(1) 



Approximately 10,000 women served in Vietnam. The names of 
eight who died are included on the memorial walls. In the hun- 
dreds of calls and letters I have received on this issue, not one has 
suggested that the role that women played in Vietnam was not sig- 
nificant. 

However, opinion differs over the most appropriate way to honor 
these women. There are those who feel that the current design of 
the memorial incorporates the contribution of all who served in the 
war, and that alteration of that design would significantly detract 
from the memorial. They worry that the project will open the door 
to other proposals for additions to or perhaps deletions from the 
Vietnam Memorial. Others argue that the Vietnam Memorial is 
currently incomplete without more directly recognizing the role 
that women played in that conflict. 

This project has also raised the broader issue of who has the au- 
thority for significantly altering existing memorials. The Com- 
memorative Works Act passed by Congress last session is clear in 
its intent that only Congress can authorize memorials on Federal 
lands in the District of Columbia and its environs. The Act careful- 
ly defines a process for design approval that includes the Fine Arts 
Commission and the National Capital Planning Commission. 

I welcome all the witnesses who have come to testify today. I un- 
derstand that there are strong sentiments and strong arguments on 
all sides of the issue, and I look forward to your testimony. While 
recognizing the complexity of the issues involved, I would £isk, if at 
all possible, that you summarize your oral statements so that time 
will be allowed for questions and all the witnesses will have an op- 
portunity to speak. 

The hearing record will remain open for two weeks from today to 
receive additional testimony. 

I am very pleased to have as our lead-off witness a co-author of 
the bill with another Member of Congress, Senator Durenberger of 
Minnesota. 

Senator Durenberger, we are honored to have you, and please 
proceed. 

[The text of S. 2042 follows:] 



n 



100th congress 

2d Session 



S. 2042 



To authorize the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, Inc., to construct a statue 
at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in honor and recognition of the women of 
the United States who served in the Vietnam conflict. 



m THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Febeuaby 4 flegislative day, Febeuaey 2), 1988 

Mr. DxJEENBEEGEE (for himself, Mr. Ceanston, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Muekow- 
SKi, Mr. Dole, Mr. Bybd, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Boschwitz, Mr. Bubdick, 
Mr. Chafee, Mr. Chiles, Mr. Cochean, Mr. Conead, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
DeConcini, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Foed, Mr. Geassley, Mr. Geaham, Mr. 
Hatch, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Humphbey, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Kennedy, 
Mr. Kebby, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lugae, Mr. Matsunaga, Mr. Metzenbaum, 
Mr. Pell, Mr. Peessleb, Mr. Quayle, Mr. Riegle, Mr. Rockefellee, 
Mr. Roth, Mr. Sanfoed, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Simon, Mr. Spectee, Mr. 
Stennis, Mr. Weickee, and Mr. Wieth) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources 



A BILL 



To authorize the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, Inc., to 
construct a statue at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 
honor and recognition of the women of the United States 
who served in the Vietnam conflict. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 Section 1. Authoeity foe Consteuction of a 

4 Statue Honoeing Women Who Seeved in the Viet- 



2 

1 NAM Conflict. — (a) Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the 

2 Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, Inc., a nonprofit corpo- 

3 ration authorized to operate in the District of Columbia, is 

4 authorized to construct a statue of a woman Vietnam veteran 

5 on public grounds within the 2.2 acre Vietnam Veterans Me- 

6 morial site in the District of Columbia in honor and recogni- 

7 tion of the women of the United States who served in the 

8 Vietnam conflict. 

9 (b)(1) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with 

10 the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, Inc., and the Vet- 

11 erans' Memorial Fund, Inc., is authorized and directed to 

12 select, with the approval of the Commission of Fine Arts and 

13 the National Capital Planning Commission, a suitable site for 

14 the statue within the 2.2 acre Vietnam Veterans Memorial 

15 site in the District of Columbia, 

16 (2) The design and plans for the statue shall be subject 

17 to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, the Commis- 

18 sion of Fine Arts, and the National Capital Plarming Com- 

19 mission. Not later than thirty days after the date of the en- 

20 actment of this section, the Secretary of the Interior shall 

21 decide whether or not to approve the design and plans and, if 

22 the Secretary approves them or takes no action to approve or 

23 disapprove them (in which case his approval shall be deemed 

24 to have been given), shall submit the design and plans to 

25 each of the Commissions forthwith. If either Commission fails 



3 

1 to report its approval of or specific objection to such design 

2 and plans within ninety days after the submission of the 

3 plans, the approval of the Commission in question shall be 

4 deemed to be given. 

5 (3) Neither the United States nor the District of Colum- 

6 bia shall be put to any expense in the construction of the 

7 statue. 

8 (c) The authority conferred pursuant to this section shall 

9 lapse unless (1) the construction of the statue is commenced 

10 within five years from the date of the enactment of this sec- 

11 tion, and (2) prior to groundbreaking for actual construction 

12 on the site, funds are certified available in an amount suffi- 

13 cient in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, based 

14 upon the approved design and plans for the statue, to ensure 

15 completion of the construction of the statue. 

16 (d) The maintenance and care of the statue constructed 

17 under the provisions of this section shall be the responsibility 

18 of the Secretary of the Interior. 

19 Sec, 2. It is the sense of the Congress that — 

20 (1) it is most fitting and appropriate that this 

21 statue in honor and recognition of the women of the 

22 United States who served in the Vietnam conflict be 

23 constructed at the site of the Vietnam Veterans Memo- 

24 rial to help complete the process of recognition and 

25 healing, for the men and women of the Armed Forces 

S 2042 IS - 



4 

1 of the United States who served in the Vietnam con- 

2 fliet, that was undertaken with the establishment of the 

3 Memorial; 

4 (2) the addition of the statue is well within the 

5 scope, purpose, and intent of the law, Public Law 96- 

6 297, authorizing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 

7 Fund, Inc., to establish the Memorial and could and 

8 should be undertaken pursuant to that law without the 

9 need for the enactment of this Act; 

10 (3) the Secretary and each of the Commissions 

11 should, in evaluating the plan and design for the 

12 statue, give weighty consideration to the sense of the 

13 Congress expressed in this section that a statue of a 

14 woman Vietnam veteran should be constructed at the 

15 Vietnam Veterans Memorial site; and 

16 (4) after the addition of a statue of a woman Viet- 

17 nam veteran, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial will be 

18 complete, and no further additions to the site should be 

19 authorized or undertaken. 



STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE DURENBERGER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MINNESOTA 

Senator Durenberger. Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski, I 
thank you for the chance to begin the testimony today on the pro- 
posed Vietnam Women's Memorial project, and I thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for the objectivity of that statement. 

The legislation before you today, S. 2042, was introduced by Sen- 
ator Cranston and myself on February 4, 1988. Currently it has 52 
co-sponsors, including eight members of the subcommittee. S. 2042 
authorizes the construction of a statue of a woman Vietnam veter- 
an in our nation's Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The legislation 
would complete the mandate of Public Law 96-297, to honor and 
recognize, and I quote, "the men and women of the Armed Forces 
of the United States who served in the Vietnam war." 

I do not need to tell the members of this committee about the 
power of the existing memorial in Constitution Gardens, nor about 
the foresight of its creators. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is 
now the most visited site in Washington, D.C. Like the millions 
that have visited the memorial, I have been touched by its grace 
and its awe. This moving memorial did not spring from the ground. 
The existence of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a tribute to 
the selfless dedication of a small group of men who formed the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Jack Wheeler, Jan Scruggs, 
Bob Doubek and others. At great personal cost, the fund faced 
strong opposition, endured tremendous controversy, and pursued 
the dream of honoring the men and the women who fought in the 
most divisive conflict of the century. 

We all know the fund ultimately prevailed in their efforts, but 
only after a series of seemingly insurmountable hurdles, and only 
with the help of a number of Senators, John Warner, Charles 
"Mac" Mathias, Dale Bumpers, and Bob Dole. The story of that 
earlier struggle will be the subject of an NBC television movie to 
be aired on May 22 of this year. 

The struggle to recognize Americans who served in Vietnam is 
almost over, and it will be over when we complete the honor to the 
men and women who served in Vietnam. Donna Marie Boulay, 
Diane Evans and Jerry Bender formed the Vietnam Women's Me- 
morial project in 1984 with the goal of educating America about 
the contributions of women and honoring those contributions by 
erecting a statue of a female veteran at the Vietnam Veterans Me- 
morial. 

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund supported the concept. 
All major veterans groups endorsed the proposal. Grass roots sup- 
port from throughout the nation was expressed. Secretary Don 
Hodel felt that the original authorization. Public Law 96-297, was 
adequate authority to complete the memorial with a woman's 
statue. 

In spite of this broad and deep support, which included many 
Members of Congress, on October 22, 1987 the Commission of Fine 
Arts voted £igainst the proposal. In the wake of that rejection, I in- 
troduced legislation that would have removed the Commission of 
Fine Arts' ability to veto the project. That legislation had 36 co- 
sponsors. Our colleague Alan Cranston talked me into the modifica- 



8 

tion which is before you, and you, Mr. Chairman, among others, 
talked both of us into not offering it as an amendment to the Con- 
tinuing Resolution in December of 1987 in order that the hearings 
could be held which are being held today before the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee. 

S. 2042 lays out an approval process fully consistent with Public 
Law 99-652, the Commemorative Works Act, requiring the Secre- 
tary of Interior, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the National 
Capital Planning Commission to grant formal approval to the Viet- 
nam Women's Memorial Project. S. 2042 follows the identical pro- 
cedure followed for the original Vietnam Memorial. I hope that the 
Commission of Fine Arts will see how deeply Americans feel about 
this proposal and play a constructive role in making the Vietnam 
Women's Memorial Project a reality. 

We as lawmakers must consider the fine points of a statutory ap- 
proval process, but S. 2042 is not simply about laying out timeta- 
bles and approval process. It is really about recognition and honor, 
and it is about grief and pain and about reconciliation and about 
hope. A representational work of art honoring female Vietnam vet- 
erans is an appropriate and an overdue symbol of this nation's 
gratitude for the sacrifices and the contributions of 10,000 women 
who served in Vietnam. 

Some have argued that this proposal would open the floodgates 
for statues of everything from subgroups to scout dogs. I want the 
record to show very clearly that the sponsors of S. 2042 consider 
this statue a fitting way to complete the Vietnam Veterans Memo- 
rial, and language in the bill before you expresses the sense of Con- 
gress on this point. Senator Cranston and I would support any 
effort by this committee to make that language stronger. 

After I became involved, Mr. Chairman, in supporting this 
project, I began to receive mail from Vietnam veterans across the 
country supporting the proposal. Many who wrote expressed a 
theme that I find particularly compelling. They said that they 
would not be alive today if it were not for the women who served 
so ably in Vietnam. I think we all know that the wall would have 
had many more names if not for the heroism, the commitment and 
the bravery of American women in Vietnam. 

I was provided a new form of petition, Mr. Chairman, as I came 
into the room, signed by quite a few of my constituents in Minneso- 
ta in support of this project, but I guess the telling side of the 
poster is on the reverse on which it says not all women wore love 
beads in the sixties. It says a lot about the kind of commitment 
that the men and the women of this country made who were will- 
ing to serve in Vietnam. 

Today, Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski, you will hear 
from voices more experienced and much more eloquent than my 
own on why this memorial should be built. I urge you to heed those 
voices and support the passage of S. 2042. 

Thank you. 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you. Senator Durenberger. 

Senator Durenberger, just to be the devil's advocate, can you 
imagine any other proposal as an addition to the Vietnam Veter- 
ans Memorial other than this that you would support? 

Senator Durenberger. I cannot, no, Mr. Chairman. 



Senator Bumpers. A lot of American Indians lost their lives in 
Vietnam, and there has been some suggestion that there ought to 
be some commemoration of them separately from the statue that 
exists there now. 

Would you support that? 

Senator Durenberger. No, I would not, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Bumpers. You cannot imagine any addition other than a 
statue of a woman that you would support? 

Senator Durenberger. I cannot, Mr. Chairman, no. I find in the 
original language of the authorizing legislation, I find that very in- 
structive, and I find that in and of itself limiting. I do not find that, 
as some have said, women are a special or a single issue interest 
group or some other one of the readily identified special interests 
in America. Women are a majority of the people of this country, 
and so I cannot — I guess ever since this notion was presented to 
me, I wondered why I had not thought about that long before they 
did. 

Senator Bumpers. Senator Durenberger, when did you first visit 
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial? 

Senator Durenberger. I guess I cannot remember the date, but 
it was probably six years ago now, something like that. 

Senator Bumpers. Six years ago. 

Senator Durenberger. Yes. 

Senator Bumpers. Was it a moving experience for you? 

Senator Durenberger. Incredibly so because I went there expect- 
ing — we come from — I know Vermont is the so-called Granite 
State, but Minnesota has got a lot more granite than any other 
state, and so you will find in our public buildings and in our memo- 
rials a lot of works of art on stone, and so I went there with the 
feeling that what I was going to see was another large stone monu- 
ment, and that I would walk along it and look for familiar names. 

I found that as a practical matter, the names that I had come 
prepared to look for I neglected until my second visit to actually go 
to seek out because I was overcome by the feeling that was gener- 
ated inside me by both the simplicity and the numbers that were 
represented on that stone. 

Senator Bumpers. Did you feel that your visit there was incom- 
plete for lack of a statue of a woman? 

Senator Durenberger. I have— well, if the Vietnam Memorial 
were only the stone with the engraved names, I am not sure how I 
would have reacted, but when I see the memorial with sort of the 
traditional male with a weapon, or the traditional infantryman, it 
is not complete. It is not complete at all. 

I thought, for example, when I first saw this statue, I thought 
nurse, and I have heard a lot of people say, you know, nurse, why 
do we not represent all of the other occupations. But then I got 
thinking, Mr. Chairman, that infantryman has always represented 
all of the MOS', if you will, but it has also stood for man, and this 
stands very clearly for woman. It stands more for woman, as you 
will hear from those with more ability than I to express it, than it 
stands for nurse. 

So as the infantryman says man, the addition of this says 
woman, and I think this does complete the memorial. 

Senator Bumpers. Senator Murkowski? 



10 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
want to commend you for holding this hearing today. I think it is 
most appropriate. I think that the sensitivity expressed in the 
statement of the Senator from Minnesota has been a reflection on, 
indeed, our long recognition of this void, and while I gather there 
are certain realities associated with the final approval of this 
design, I certainly want to take the opportunity to express my sup- 
port for Senate Bill 2042. You know, when speaking of the Vietnam 
Women's Memorial, it is important, and I think we would all 
agree, to reflect upon the organization, the people who have 
worked so hard to establish this lasting tribute to America's 
women Vietnam veterans. The memorial project was founded in 
1984 by the three Vietnam veterans who have really dedicated 
their time to tell the American people about the role that women 
played in that conflict. As such, they have done really a superb job 
in ensuring a place in history for women Vietnam veterans. I think 
we can all £igree, Mr. Chairman, that we are grateful for their con- 
tribution. 

As we reflect throughout American history, women in uniform 
have served our nation. They have served our nation well, and 
their service in Vietnam was part of that great tradition. Of the 
thousands of women who served, many were young nurses fresh 
out of school caring for our wounded with great skill and great 
compassion in intensive care units, burn units. These women wit- 
nessed firsthand the overwhelming and painful costs of war. They 
witnessed the frustration and the horror that war brings. And I 
think now is the time for these women veterans to know that their 
work, their commitment in Vietnam did not go so unnoticed. 

I think that the statue in honor and recognition of more than 
10,000 American women who served in that conflict is being recog- 
nized as it appropriately should be. These brave women clearly de- 
serve to be recognized for their great contribution and great sacri- 
fices. It is my sincere belief that this statue in their honor is a 
most fitting and appropriate tribute, and I would certainly antici- 
pate, by the support that you have seen, Senator Durenberger, on 
that bill that a far vast majority of our colleagues are in agree- 
ment. 

Mr. Chairman, I have no questions specifically of the witness 
other than to commend him and you for moving ahead in this long 
overdue and worthy memorial. 

I would ask the balance of my statement be included £is if read in 
the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:] 






11 



STATEMENT BY SENATOR FRANK H- MURKOWSKICR-AK) 

ON LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF A MEMORIAL 

TO HONOR THE WOMEN VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM WAR, 




J^'^ 



I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR S. 2042, 
A BILL WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE THE VIETNAM WoMEN's MEMORIAL 

Project, to construct a statue in honor and recognition of the 
WOMEN of the United States who served in uniform during the 
Vietnam war- I was pleased to have joined with my two 
distinguished colleagues, Mr. Cranston from California and Mr. 
Durenberger from Minnesota, as an original cosponsor on this 
important legislation. 



When speaking of the Vietnam Women's Memorial, it is 
important that we reflect upon the organization and the people 
who have worked so hard to establish this lasting tribute to 
America's women Vietnam veterans. The Vietnam Women's Memorial 
Project was founded in 1984 by three Vietnam veterans who 
dedicate their time to tell the American people about the role 

THAT women played IN THE VIETNAM WaR. As SUCH, THEY HAVE DONE A 
SUPERB JOB IN ENSUI'ING A PLACE IN HISTORY FOR WOMEN VIETNAM 
VETERANS. We ARE GRATEFUL FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTION- 



12 



Throughout American history, ^/ome.n in lUiihn.Tfi have served 
OUR Nation and served it well- Their service in Vietnam was 

PART OF that great TRADITION. Of THE THOUSANDS OF WOMEN WHO 

SERVED IN Vietnam, many were young nurses fresh out of school 

CARING FOR OUR WOUNDED WITH GREAT SKILL AND COMPASSION IN 
INTENSIVE-CARE WARDS AND BURN UNITS- ThRSE WOMEN WITNESSED 
FIRSTHAND THE OVERWHELMING AND PAINFUL COSTS OF WAR. ThEY 

witnessed the frustration and horror of war. now is the time 
for these women verterans to know that their work in vietnam did 
not go unnoticed. 

This statue, in honor and recognition of the 10,000 
American women who served in the Vietnam conflict, is long 
OVERDUE. These brave women clearly deserve to be recognized for 

THEIR GREAT CONTRIBUTIONS AND SACRIFICES. 1t IS MY SINCEREST 
BELIEF THAT A STATUE IN THEIR HONOR WOULD BE A MOST FITTING AND 
APPROPRIATE TRIBUTE. 



I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN WITH US ON THIS IMPORTANT 
LEGISLATION. 



13 

Senator Bumpers. Without objection. 

Senator Durenberger, just one last question. 

Thank you very much for your statement, Senator Murkowski. 

I had a Vietnam veteran in my office yesterday afternoon. He is 
a longtime dear friend, lost both legs and one arm. And my guess is 
that his injuries were so severe and his losses so great that he will 
not live as long as he would otherwise live. He cannot exercise, for 
example, in many ways, like you and I do at that famous Senate 
gymnasium. 

But I think it would be fair to say in his case as well as probably 
many thousands of others that the injuries sustained by a number 
of people in Vietnam will be a contributing cause to their death. 

Would you be averse to putting his name on the wall when he 
dies? 

Senator Durenberger. I have some difficulty in answering that, 
Mr. Chairman, and you are just going to have to let me think 
about it. 

Senator Bumpers. Fine. Thank you very much. Senator Duren- 
berger. 

I am going to ask the next three witnesses, all of whom are ad- 
ministration witnesses, to come forward. 

You thought you had been elevated, did you not? 

William Penn Mott, who is Director of the National Park Serv- 
ice; J. Carter Brown, Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts; 
Reginald W. Griffith, Executive Director of the National Capital 
Planning Commission. 

Gentlemen, welcome. 

Mr. Mott, we are honored to have you with us this afternoon. 
Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PENN MOTT, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 
PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. Mott. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to provide 
your subcommittee with the views of the Department of the Interi- 
or on this legislation. In the light of saving some time, I am going 
to condense my remarks. You have a copy of my total comments. 

As you know, I recommended and the Secretary concurred that 
the statue be added to the existing memorial. Women who served 
in and with our armed forces in Vietnam have done so with honor, 
strength and commitment. Yet they are often overlooked when our 
Nation recognizes its veterans. 

If Congress concurs with us that this statue would enhance the 
memorial, then we would have no objections to this bill. In addi- 
tion, we wish to commend the authors of S. 2042 for their sensitivi- 
ty and foresight in placing in the bill an expression of the sense of 
Congress that with the addition of a statue of a woman veteran, 
the memorialization to our Vietnam veterans will be complete. We 
wholeheartedly agree. We intend to work closely with the Commis- 
sion of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning Commission and 
the nonprofit Vietnam Women's Memorial Project. 

We do have one technical amendment to the bill which should be 
considered in any further action on the measures, and we will 
make that available to your staff. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mott follows:] 



14 



STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PENN MOTT , JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK 
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND FORESTS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON 
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 2042, A BILL TO 
AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUE HONORING WOMEN WHO SERVED IN 
THE VIETNAM CONFLICT. 

February 23, 1988 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to provide your 
Subcommittee with the views of the Department of the Interior on 
this legislation. 

S. 2042 would authorize the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, 
Inc., a nonprofit corporation, to construct a statue of a woman 
Vietnam veteran withm the 2.2 acre site of the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial in the District of Columbia. 

The Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to select a 
suitable site, with the approval of the Commission of Fine Arts 
and the National Capital Planning Commission; and the design and 
plans for the statue would be subject to the approval of the 
Secretary and the two Commissions. The bill contains the usual 
provisions that (1) neither the United Sates nor the District of 
Columbia shall be put to any expense in the construction of the 
statue, and (2) the authority shall lapse unless construction is 
begun within 5 years and prior to groundbreaking sufficient funds 
are available to complete the statue. 

Section 2 of the bill would express the sense of Congress that 
(1) It is appropriate that the statue be constructed to help 
complete the process of recognition and healing, (2) the addition 
of the statue could and should be undertaken pursuant to the law 
authorizing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial without the need for 
this bill, (3) the Secretary and the Commissions should give 
weighty consideration to the sense of Congress that a statue of a 
woman veteran should be constructed at the Memorial site, and 



15 



(4) after the addition of a statue of a woman veteran, the 
Memorial will be complete and no further additions should be 
authorized or undertaken. 

As you know, I recommended, and the Secretary concurred, that the 
statue be added to the existing memorial. Women who served in 
and with our Armed Forces in Vietnam have done so with honor, 
strength, and commitment, yet they are often overlooked when our 
Nation recognizes its veterans. The law that authorized con- 
struction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Public Law 96-297, 
specifically dictated that the memorialization is "in honor and 
recognition of the men and women... who served in the Vietnam 
war." Statuary representation of the 10,000 women who served m 
Vietnam, of whom about 5,000 were civilians, would appropriately 
recognize the contributions of these women as envisioned by the 
law that authorized the Memorial. This proposal has widespread 
support among many Americans, particularly veteran's organiza- 
tions which we have consulted. 

If Congress concurrs with us that this statue would enhance the 
Memorial, then we would have no objection to this bill. In addi- 
tion, we wish to commend the authors of S. 2042 for their sen- 
sitivity and foresight in placing in the bill an expression of 
the sense of the Congress that with the addition of a statue of a 
woman veteran, the memorialization to our Vietnam Veterans will 
be complete. We wholeheartedly agree. We intend to work closely 
with the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning 
Commission, and the nonprofit Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, 
Inc . 

We do have one technical amendment to the bill which should be 
considered m any further action on the measure. 

This concludes by prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be 
pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 



16 



Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much. 
Mr. J. Carter Brown. 

STATEMENT OF J. CARTER BROWN, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION OF 

FINE ARTS 

Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the grey area as to 
whether or not I am here to represent the administration. As 
Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts, I was appointed by the 
current President. I have to confess I was also appointed by the 
previous three Presidents, so that I consider my judgments to be 
nonpartisan. 

If this legislation is passed, and even without it, if any new pro- 
posal of this kind should be submitted to the Commission of Fine 
Arts, we would keep an open mind and look at any proposal on its 
merits. 

In the spirit of open mindedness, I believe the proposed legisla- 
tion could be improved by entering less into design specifics of 
what it endorses; rather, it might refer to a specific commemora- 
tion of women Vietnam veteran whenever it now calls for a statue 
of a woman. 

Meanwhile, I would like to take this opportunity to review for 
the committee some of the events and thinking that have led up to 
the point which we are at today. 

Congress has, as I see it, already taken four important actions 
that relate to this issue. First of all, it authorized the Vietnam Vet- 
erans Memorial itself, as we heard in your excellent testimony. 
Congress' mandate has been carried out, and it has been pro- 
claimed for the millions of annual visitors to see reaffirmed in the 
inscription at the very center which reads "In honor of the men 
and women of the Armed Forces of the United States who served 
in the Vietnam War." 

And the resulting memorial has been as successful as any histo- 
ry. We need not insist on that. The original drawings puzzled some 
people, but now no one can leave there unmoved. 

Second, in 1986 the Congress passed Public Law 99-652, known 
as the Commemorative Works Act, in order to guard against the 
proliferation of statuary and memorials in the monumental core of 
Washington. The need for this partly triggered by the very success 
of the Vietnam Memorial as it now stands. The natural impulse is 
for every group now to want to achieve memorialization. Very 
wisely, the Congress has foreseen where this could lead and has 
taken a very commendable initiative in applying brakes to a proc- 
ess that, if left completely to the winds of political opportunism, 
could conceivably make a travesty of the memorials we now have. 

Third, the Congress has recognized the deep debt of gratitude 
this nation owes the dedicated and heroic women who have served 
the Armed Forces of this country in Vietnam and in all wars by 
passing also in 1986 Public Law 99-610 authorizing a memorial spe- 
cifically for women in the monumental core of the Capital area. A 
memorial to nurses who have served their country in war already 
exists in Arlington Cemetery. The congressional mandate I refer to, 
however, goes beyond that and beyond the current legislative pro- 
posal which is limited to the women who served in Vietnam. In PL 



17 

99-610, Congress implicitly underscored the importance of fairness 
and of not excluding the contributions of women in all other wars. 
This memorial would include the heroic uniformed women of the 
Vietnam conflict, yes, who numbered some 10,000, but it would also 
recognize, for example, the over 350,000 women who served in 
World War II. Some of them were shot down in action delivering 
bombers from U.S. factories, and, in other countless ways, well over 
a million women have served our country in war in degrees of sac- 
rifice that are beyond measure. Although breaking out the Viet- 
nam component and treating it separately does not theoretically 
preclude the memorial that has already been authorized by Con- 
gress, in the practical world of fundraising, since all of these must 
be built with private funds, it does undeniably interfere with it. 

Fourth, the Congress has created two commissions, the Commis- 
sion of Fine Arts in 1910, and the National Capital Planning Com- 
mission in 1924, specifically to serve the people of this country by 
bringing to bear expert opinion on issues of just this kind. Congress 
has then and since consistently recognized that questions of design 
are not best resolved by large legislative bodies. As to the Fine 
Arts Commission's role, we believe that a wrongly designed memo- 
rial will, over the years, do a disservice to the cause it is attempt- 
ing to serve, and thus we feel the Commission's role lies in the line 
of patriotic duty to the long-term interests of the nation as a whole. 

Historically, the Commission of Fine Arts is very proud of its 
specific role over the past 15 years in helping to bring about the 
highly successful Vietnam Memorial that exists today. In the be- 
ginning, if you will remember, on that site were the tempos, the 
temporary office buildings that cluttered the mall as an expedient 
of World War I and remained until finally President Nixon took up 
the cudgels personally and got them torn down. His idea for that 
space north of the Reflecting Pool, however, was to create a Tivoli 
on the Mall, and the Fine Arts Commission fought the concept of 
an amusement park on that site as inappropriate. 

The resulting landscape design we believe is enormously success- 
ful. Constitution Gardens, as that site is now called, contains a 
very beautiful meadow whose point is its flatness in contrast to the 
great vertical statements made by the Lincoln and Washington 
Monuments. Therefore, when we first heard that Congress had 
mandated a memorial in that area, we had deep misgivings. We 
were thus immensely relieved when we found that the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial jury had chosen, from the 1,421 designs submit- 
ted, a solution offered by a talented designer, herself a woman, 
which took the given of that flatness and moulded it into the me- 
morial we now know and cherish. Its long arms point each to the 
great presidential memorials, and thus in a sense incorporate by 
reference the ideals for which our Armed Forces suffered in Viet- 
nam. 

We are particularly proud of the Fine Arts Coinmission's role in 
making it possible for the present memorial to exist at all. So deep 
was our conviction of the importance of the subject, that these 
heroic veterans, men and women, should be recognized on the 
Mall, and so impressed were we with the design by Maya Lin, that 
I personally risked the opprobrium of the arts community in this 
country in pleading with my fellow Commission members to give in 



18 

to the demand of the then-Secretary of the Interior, Secretary 
Watt, that we agree in principle to the addition of a bronze sculp- 
ture and flag before he would release the building permit that 
would allow any memorial to be constructed. 

As to the flag, this presented little problem, even though we 
were trying to avoid vertical elements, as long as it could be prop- 
erly sited. The idea of placing it at the apex of the wall, like a golf 
tee, would have rendered a tremendous disservice to our national 
flag, as no vertical element of that scale could look anjrthing but 
silly in immediate juxtaposition with the enormous stretch of wall 
and the emotional power of the memorial as designed. That apex, 
reflecting as it does our two greatest American monuments, is al- 
ready charged with patriotic meaning and needs no further pretti- 
fication. 

Imagine plunking an American flag on top of the Lincoln or Jef- 
ferson Memorials, or why not, the Washington Monument. 

As to adding any sculptural group, it certainly was with heavy 
misgivings that my fellow Commission members and I reached this 
compromise in our own minds, but we felt that if the right sculptor 
were involved and the location of the statuary were sensitively 
enough placed, we could just get away with one such exception 
without destroying the extraordinary integrity and power of the 
basic memorial itself. 

And I believe, Mr. Chairman, we did just get away with it, as the 
present sculpture is such an impressive work of art and sets up a 
kind of dynamic balance, an interaction with the memorial, and 
serves as an explicatory entrance experience for those who approach 
the memorial from the Lincoln Memorial, which so many do. 

The solution offered by the Vietnam veterans for a specific sculp- 
ture was to resort to symbolism, as there was no way a literal de- 
piction could be made to include all the elements who fought or 
served in Vietnam. It is the device honored over the millenia of 
having the part stand for the whole. Many heroic Americans who 
served are not literally depicted in that sculptural element. Among 
them, it is true, are the 10,000 women who served as a part of the 
uniformed force numbering over 3 million, or, as it happens then, 
less than half of 1 percent. 

But the point of the memorial is not the piece of sculpture that 
got added to it. The original memorial, the wall, stands to honor 
all, and is explicitly inclusive. The emotional issue today, I recog- 
nize, is triggered by the bronze that is there now which tends to 
produce envy on the part of anyone belonging to any subgroup that 
is not visually depicted by those three infrantrymen. The Commis- 
sion felt in its review this fall that including a white. Army nurse 
would only continue and exacerbate that process of exclusion. It is 
a slippery slope. 

We were equally unhappy with the October 22 submission on a 
variety of design grounds, but I am not sure this is the forum for 
getting into all of those details. 

I sketch in this history, in closing, Mr. Chairman, merely to es- 
tablish for the record that this is perhaps a more complicated issue 
than it may appear on the surface, and that the Fine Arts Commis- 
sion action this fall was not taken capriciously or prejudicially. If 
there is a conceptual flaw in including any statuary, we questioned 



19 



whether it could ever be corrected by merely adding more. Two do 
not make a right. If this year's legislation says we stop with just 
one more addition, what does next year's legislation say? 

I commend this committee on taking valuable time to review this 
matter, and my fellow Commissioners and I look forward to the op- 
portunity of continuing objectively and open-mindedly to serve this 
Congress in any way it asks. 

[Subsequent to the hearing Mr. Brown submitted the following:] 



20 



THE COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS 

ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS MAY 17, 1910 RtCO 

J. CARTER BROWN, Chairman ' ^A^\^ ^ 

CAROLYN J. DEAVER NEIL H. PORTERFIELD 

ROV M. GOODMAN PASCAL REGAN ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ 

FREDERICK E. HART DIANE WOLF WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 

CHARLES H. ATHERTON, Secretary 202-566-1066 

March 7, 1988 



Dear Senator Bumpers: 

When testifying on the Vietnam Women's Memorial project at your hearing 
on 23 February, I stated that the Commission believes the language of the bill 
could be improved by omitting a specific mandate for "a statue of a woman" and 
broadening the bill to read "a specific commemoration of women Vietnam veter- 
ans. 

Since this recommendation was so brief and occurred at the very beginning 
of my remarks, I want to be certain it is not overlooked and is given the 
appropriate weight intended by the Commission. 

We believe that, as a rule, legislation should not spell out specific 
design requirements, but should allow a number of solutions, some of which 
might fit the program better than others. Such an approach allows greater 
latitude in finding the most appropriate answer, and this is particularly true 
for the Vietnam Memorial where the existing context is not only sensitive, but 
relatively fixed. 

We hope your committee will give serious consideration to modifying the 
wording of the bill to allow for this greater latitude. 

Let me add how enormously impressed I was by your conduct of the hear- 
ings. 



With all best wishes. 



Sincere 



QiefiulLo^,. 



J. Carter Brown 
Chairman 



The Honorable Dale L. Bumpers 
United States Senate (229 SDOB) 
Washington, D.C. 20510-0401 



21 



Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much. 

Gentlemen, let me just say I am reluctant to impose any kind of 
a rule of limiting statements, but we have 18 witnesses, which 
means we are going to be going into the evening at the rate we are 
going, and if anybody can possibly summarize their statements or 
shorten them in any way, this Chairman will be most grateful. 

You just happened to get elected, Mr. Griffith. 

Proceed. 

STATEMENT OF REGINALD W. GRIFFITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION 

Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will of course have my total statement for the record, and I will 
attempt to at least eliminate part of it. 

Senator Bumpers. Mr. Griffith, would you pull the microphone 
up as close as you feel comfortable with it. We do not pass very 
good laws, and our sound system is even worse. 

Mr. Griffith. All right. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the other members 
of the committee for the invitation to present the views of the Na- 
tional Capital Planning Commission on Senate Bill 2042. Mention 
has already been made of the role of the National Capital Planning 
Commission, and therefore I will not go into our very long history 
since 1924 but will focus directly on the subject. 

It is hoped that during our 64 years we have acquired some 
wisdom as well as insights into how to accommodate change with 
preservation while presiding over the orderly growth and develop- 
ment of the federal establishment in the region. 

In terms of Senate Bill 2042, we appreciate that the authors 
confer approval authority over location, design and plans to NCPC 
as well as to the Commission of Fine Arts and to the Secretary of 
the Interior. This authority will enable us to continue our role of 
reviewing the monuments and memorials in our nation's capital 
consistent with the comprehensive plan and considerations of his- 
toric preservation as well as other principles of sound planning. 

Having said that, however, I must express some concerns. 

First, an addition to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial at this 
time would represent the second alteration. You will recall that 
the memorial's final design was approved February 18, 1982. The 
memorial was officially dedicated on November 13, 1982, that is, 
Veteran's Day weekend. Then the first addition of the statue and 
the flag pole that has been referred to earlier was made in March 
of 1983. At that time we all believed the memorial was complete. 

And now we have another proposal. At what point is the memo- 
rial complete? 

Second, how far do we go in identifying categories of individuals 
within the group we honor? 

And third, what effect will this precedent of continued changes 
after the fact have on other memorials currently being planned? 

These questions in no way detract from the respect and the grati- 
tude that the Commission holds for the women who served in the 
Vietnam conflict. Those heroic women fully deserve the full honors 



22 



of a grateful nation. The question is not if these women should be 
honored but how. 

Is an addition to this existing powerful memorial the answer? 
We have our doubts. As members of the committee have noted 
from recent newspaper accounts, the Commission has advised the 
Secretary of the Interior that its members are opposed in principle 
to any further additions to the memorial site. 

We believe it behooves all of us to bear in mind that this memo- 
rial represents honor to those who served in Vietnam, and it also 
symbolizes the final link between those who made the ultimate sac- 
rifice and their remaining loved ones. The memorial has served as 
the place for thousands to comfort and grieve and to begin to heal. 
Change begets changed, and further modifications only serve to 
reopen emotional wounds. 

The power of the memorial has become so compelling it has been 
universally acclaimed in its present form. Because of the simplicity 
and the great strength of the memorial as it now stands, change 
should not be undertaken without considering other related legisla- 
tive initiatives already under way. 

Here I would like to point to and reiterate Mr. Brown's third ob- 
servation, Public Law 99-610, passed in 1986. This law authorizes a 
memorial in the monumental core for all women who served in the 
Armed Forces. This memorial will include not only the courageous 
women who served in the Vietnam conflict, but all of the brave 
women who participated in all wars beginning with Pearl Harbor. 
Although one memorial does not necessarily preclude another, it 
raises certain practical issues along with aesthetic considerations. 

We would like to commend the committee for providing the Com- 
mission as well as other parties the opportunity to be heard. Al- 
though we believe that altering the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 
any way must be approached very carefully and only after consid- 
erable thought and deep reflection, you can rest assured that re- 
gardless of your decision, the National Capital Planning Commis- 
sion will implement the will and the intent of Congress to the very 
best of its professional ability. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:] 



23 



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION 

1}25 G STREET N.W 
WASHINGTON, DC. 20576 



Statement on S. 2042 By 

Reginald W. Griffith 
Executive Director 

Before the 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
Subcommittee on Public Lands, 
National Parks and Forests 

February 23, 1988 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the other 
members of the Committee for the invitation to present the 
views of the National Capital Planning Commission on Senate 
Bill 2042. 

NCPC is the central planning agency for the federal 
government in the National Capital Region. The area includes 
the District of Columbia and the counties of Montgomery and 
Prince George's in Maryland; and Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun 
and Prince William counties in Virginia. Essentially, NCPC 
approves all federal projects in the District and has an 
advisory role for federal projects in the Region. 

Although our statutory authority rests on the Planning 
Act of 1952, our antecedents go back to 1924. That is the 
year when the Commission was established as a park planning 
agency. Over the years additional legislation expanded 
NCPC ' s function until it became what it is today. 
Incidentally, NCPC ' S best known chairman was probably 
Frederick Delano, uncle and father-figure to Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt. 



24 



-2- 

I share this historical note only to point out that the 
Commission has a perspective that has been tempered by 
resolving competing claims of one kind or another over a 
long period of time. It is our hope that during these 64 
years we have acquired some wisdon as well as insights into 
how to accommodate change with preservation while presiding 
over the orderly growth and development of the federal 
establishment in the Region. 

In terms of Senate Bill 2042, we appreciate that the 
authors confer approval authority over location, design and 
plans to NCPC as well as to the Commission of Fine Arts and 
to the Secretary of the Interior. This authority will 
enable us to continue our role of reviewing the monuments 
and memorials in our nation's capital consistent with the 
Comprehensive Plan, considerations for historic preservation 
as well as other principles of sound planning. 

Having said that, however, I must also express some 
concerns . 

O First, an addition to the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial at this time would represent the second 
alteration. You will recall that the Memorial's 
final design was approved in February 18, 1982. 



25 



-3- 

The Memorial was officially dedicated on 
November 13, 1982--Veterans Day weekend. Then 
the first addition of the statues and flag pole 
was made in March of 1983. At that time we all 
believed that the Memorial was complete. And now 
we have another proposal. At what point is a 
memorial complete? 
Second, how far do we go in identifying categories 

of individuals within the group we honor? And 
O Third, what effect will this precedent of 
continued changes after the fact have on other 
memorials currently being planned? 
These questions in no way detract from the respect and 
gratitude the Commission holds for the women who served in 
the Vietnam conflict. Those heroic women fully deserve the 
full honors of a grateful nation. 

The question is not if. these women should be honored, 
but how? Is an addition to this existing powerful memorial 
the answer? We have our doubts. As members of the 
Committee may have noted from recent newspaper accounts, the 
Commission has advised the Secretary of the Interior that 
its members are opposed in principle to any further 
additions to the Memorial site. 



26 



-4- 

We believe it behooves all of us to bear in mind what 
this memorial represents. It is not only to honor those who 
served in Vietnam, but also to symbolize the final link 
between those who made the ultimate sacrifice and their 
remaining loved ones. The memorial has served as the place 
for thousands to comfort grief and begin to heal. Change 
begets change, and further modifications only serve to 
reopen emotional wounds. 

The power of the Memorial has become so compelling it 
has been universally acclaimed in its present form. Because 
of the simplicity and great strength of the Memorial as it 
now stands, change should not be undertaken without 
considering other related legislative initiatives already 
under way. 

I am sure the Committee is aware of Public Law 99-610 
passed in 1986. This law authorizes a memorial in the 
Monumental Core for all women who served in the Armed 
Forces. This memorial will include not only the courageous 
women who served in the Vietnam conflict, but all of the 
brave women who participated in all wars beginning with 
Pearl Harbor. Although one memorial does not necessarily 
preclude another, it raises certain practical issues along 
with aesthetic considerations. 



27 



-5- 

We would like to commend the Committee for providing 
the Commission as well as other parties the opportunity to 
be heard. Although we believe that altering the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial in any way must be approached very 
carefully and only after considerable thought and deep 
reflection, you can rest assured that regardless of your 
decision, the National Capital Planning Commission will 
implement the will and intent of Congress to the very best 
of its professional abilities. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I shall be 
happy to respond to questions. 



28 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Griffith, do you know just off hand how many of these 10,000 
women who served in Vietnam were black? 

Mr. Griffith. No, sir, I do not, but I will be happy to research 
that. 

Senator Bumpers. Do you know the answer to that, Mr. Brown 
or Mr. Mott? 

Mr. Brown. I do not, but I know that some of them were. 

Senator Bumpers. What was the vote in the Fine Arts Commis- 
sion, Mr. Brown, on this? 

Mr. Brown. Four to one. 

Senator Bumpers. In opposition? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, that is right. We had one abstention because 
we had someone who had been involved in the memorial itself, so 
he excused himself. 

Senator Bumpers. Do you agree with the function and the pur- 
pose of the Fine Arts Commission, Mr. Mott, the reason it was set 
up, and the Capital Planning Commission? Do you believe in their 
role in this? 

Mr. Mott. I think that they have definitely a role. In my mind, 
as a landscape architect and having studied the site very carefully, 
I felt that the addition of the women's statue in juxtaposition to 
the men's statue would close the design concept and make it a 
much more desirable site from that point of view. 

Senator Bumpers. Can you think of any other additions or dele- 
tions from this memorial that you would support? 

Mr. Mott. No, I would think that this would finalize the design. 

Senator Bumpers. Do you think that the Secretary ought to, any 
time he feels like it, overrule the Fine Arts Commission on a four to 
one vote? 

Mr. Mott. I think the Secretary certainly does not feel that he 
should overrule the commissions in their actions. I think that he 
feels that if Congress, in its wisdom, decides to make the change 
and add the statue, that that is their responsibility. 

Senator Bumpers. In short, the precedent that would be set here 
does not disturb you? 

Mr. Mott. The precedent of establishing another statue? 

Senator Bumpers. Well, the precedent of just overruling the Fine 
Arts Commission which was set up basically for this purpose. 

Congress obviously can undo any law it ever passes, and certain- 
ly it can have the final say about what it is going to go on this me- 
morial any time it chooses to. I must say for 535 men and women 
to try to design anj^hing is very difficult, and that is one of the 
reasons, obviously, this Commission was set up. 

I must say that this is a most poignant, compelling statue there, 
but I am just asking you if somebody else comes in and wants some 
alteration or change, in the case of the flag or something else, what 
you are saying is you would be adamantly opposed to any addition- 
al changes or deletions or additions? 

Mr. Mott. I would think so. 

Senator Bumpers. Would you feel the same way now if there had 
been 10,000 women who served there and none had died? 

Are we memorializing those who served or those who died or 
both? 



29 



Mr. MoTT. Oh, I think those who died are memorialized in the 
wall, and those who served would be memorialized in the statue. 

Senator Bumpers. So you think that if 10,000 served but nobody 
died, your feelings would be the same? 

Mr. MoTT. Yes. 

Senator Bumpers. If 100 served and one died, would you feel the 
same? 

Mr. MoTT. Yes. 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appear- 
ing here today. 

John P. Wheeler III, Chairman of the Vietnam Veterans Memo- 
rial Fund. 

Mr. Wheeler, welcome to the committee. We are very pleased to 
have you and anxious to receive your testimony. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. WHEELER HI, CHAIRMAN, VIETNAM 
VETERANS MEMORIAL FUND, INC. 

Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator, and I will do my best to meet 
your time limit. 

I am John Wheeler, Chairman of the Board of the Memorial 
Fund. I am a Vietnam veteran. I served as a Captain on the Gener- 
al Staff in Long Binh from 1969 to 1970, and during the Reagan 
administration I have served in two appointive positions, and until 
recently I served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Moth- 
ers Against Drunk Driving. 

If America has a symbolic heart, it is the Mall in Washington, 
D.C., so that any change or alteration of the memorials there is 
something that has to be done with great circumspection. 

Having made that point, I would like to move directly to the 
three reasons which I find most compelling for adding the figure of 
a woman to the site. 

The first is the effect of such a statue on youth. In the years 
since we have built the memorial, I have lectured in a number of 
schools, colleges, universities, and I have taken a lot of children 
and college-age youth to the memorial. I have noted that boys, es- 
pecially young boys, boys under 15 years of age, respond very 
strongly to that statue. It helps them understand the memorial, 
and it teaches them the lesson that each generation has to earn 
this country, re-earn the country. The questions they ask make me 
realize that. 

I have noticed that the young girls are a little more restrained, 
and it is harder to draw them out. 

It is my conviction that the figure of a woman in the memorial 
area would help youth, young girls, understand their country 
better and respond in a deeper way to the memorial, and it will 
plant a seed that they will always remember of empathy with their 
country and its purposes. 

Now, in saying that, just to be very specific, I can think of one 12 
year old girl named Caitlin who lives in Connecticut, an 11 year 
old named Amanda in California, an 11 year old named Katie in 
South Carolina, all of whom I have talked with, and I am offering 
that thought, the impact of the memorial on youth. 



8A-92A 



30 



Now, it is true that 20 million Americans have visited the memo- 
rial, but that number is almost doubled when you count two travel- 
ing walls that tour the country, and then two photo exhibits which 
the Smithsonian Institution now circulates among museums in the 
country, a movie that is being produced about how the memorial 
was built, and to date, four books about the memorial. 

What I am offering is the fact that nearly 40 million Americans 
have been touched directly one way or the other by the Memorial, 
and that each year about two million young children visit the Me- 
morial, and about a million of those are girls who are under 15 
years of age. 

The second reason is the role of nurses. It is true that eight are 
named on the wall, but another fact that has particular signifi- 
cance for me is that about 10,000 men died in the MASH units. 
That is, out of 60,000 or approximately 60,000 casualties, most were 
killed by direct action on the ground, but about 10,000 died of 
wounds in the MASH. 

That means that the nurse that was taking care of them was the 
last person that they spoke with or talked with. The effect of that 
is that that nurse died a death with the soldier. And many of those 
nurses still bear that wound. 

300,000 soldiers were wounded, and each of those wounds tended 
to be very traumatic, and of course it was nurses that bore the 
worst moments of depression and feeling of being lost, afraid of 
death, that these soldiers went through. And it is the nurses that 
still bear those wounds. 

If there were 10,000 nurses, that means in rough terms there was 
one death per nurse, three wounds per nurse. And that means that 
each of the nurses you meet is still carr3dng the effects of those 
wounds. 

A third point that I find compelling is that somewhere there in 
the sixties our country bridged some great divide, some change in 
its life. And to an extent, although we did not plan it or intend it, 
the Memorial represents that transition. 

And the fact is that during the sixties and the early seventies 
the role of women in our country advanced more than it probably 
had in the last century. And there is some truth, some deep poetic 
truth, to the fact that the figure of a woman in the Memorial 
would express that truth. 

Finally, I know that a lot of debate on this issue tends to get 
buried in statistics and deep pros and cons. The point I would like 
to make is that this is not a question that can be resolved by count- 
ing up numbers of people who served or who were wounded. 

And it is first of all a question of the heart, not a question of 
statistics. It is my judgment that the role of women is absolutely 
unique, it is sui generis, and such that the role of women is com- 
pletely apart from any other proponent for change in the Memori- 
al. 

Also, Senator Bumpers, building this Memorial has been a proc- 
ess. It in fact has been a process, and adding names to the Memori- 
al is something that we do. We did add the statue and, thanks to 
Carter Brown, it turned out to work brilliantly with the entryway 
that he built. And we are still in the midst of that process. 



31 



And it will take some judgment. There will be controversy, and it 
will take some faith as you all make your decision. 

I brought some items which I wanted to put in the record be- 
cause it will illuminate a little bit about the past and about this 
process that may be useful as you deliberate and later as the 
House deliberates on this issue. 

First of all, I would very briefly like to thank the Secretary of 
the Interior, Mr. Hodel, and also Mr. Mott for the work that they 
have done in caring for the Memorial. They have taken a lot of 
steps, many of them extraordinary, to make the Memorial work 
well for the American people. 

One of them is a computer they have that helps people — helps 
soldiers find a buddy, even if all they remember is a nickname or 
where the guy was from. 

I would like to thank Carter Brown for the work that he has 
done so far in being a shepherd of the Memorial and the work he 
did in finding a solution to add that first statue. And Carter, I 
think what we will do with the Memorial fund is get you a flak 
vest and a battle helmet, because I can't think of anyone that has 
done more or borne more responsibility on this issue. 

Maya Lin is in the room and I know she could not say it herself, 
but it is very important for you to know that the controversy she 
found herself swept up into after we adopted her design was very 
painful, very personally painful. And she has been through a great 
deal in shepherding her design and living with the fact that she is 
the person who conceived the walls. 

I would like to shift now very briefly to the question of cons. 
That is, I have listed three compelling reasons why there should be 
a figure of a woman, but first of all, there is a slippery slope, the 
threat of a sculpture garden. 

I think that argument is overdone. I believe the American people 
have a lot of forebearance, and if this Congress, together with the 
Memorial Fund, declares that Memorial finished if a woman's 
figure is added, I am confident that that would be the rule that en- 
dures. It is a judgment question and it is a question of forebear- 
ance. 

To answer your earlier question. Senator Bumpers, as far as the 
Memorial Fund is concerned, if this figure is added that would be 
the last change ever. 

You asked a question about Indians. I do see them as an impor- 
tant group, as many other groups are important. But they do not 
stand in the special category that women stand, so that we would 
object to adding the figure of an Indian. 

Very briefly, one anecdote. During the week that we dedicated 
the Memorial, several Indians came out from the Midwest dressed 
in eagle feathers and they dedicated the Memorial to the Great 
Spirit. And right at the end of their ceremony on a rainy day, the 
clouds parted and the sun shone smack on the vertex of the Memo- 
rial. 

It struck Jan Scruggs so deeply that he called me and told me 
about it, nearly in tears. 

There has been a special relationship between the Memorial and 
the Indians, particularly because of the warrior tradition among 



32 

Indians. But I believe that America's Indian population would fore- 
bear if Congress made plain that this was the last change ever. 

The second con, the second difficulty, might be that there in fact 
is no solution, that the Fine Arts Commission acting in good faith 
might find that there is no suitable location or there is no suitable 
statute. And in this regard, it may be that the statue here is not 
the statue that Fine Arts could declare acceptable. 

That is possible, and they may find no solution that is accepta- 
ble. I will say parenthetically, though, that if there is a solution I 
believe the Fine Arts Commission and Carter Brown can find it. 

Third, there is a Women's Memorial that is being created. The 
difficulty with it is that that Memorial represents catch-up ball for 
all the wars that our country has already been in. There is an ar- 
gument to be made that this Memorial ought to be done right and 
let the other Memorial to women represent catch-up for the some 
200 years of our country's history. 

Finally with respect to cons and problems, I would like specifical- 
ly to address the question of a flagpole. There is a bill, H.R. 1600, 
advanced by Congressman Dornan to add a flagpole right at the 
vertex of the Memorial, a very tall one. 

The flagpole would be a disaster. There already is a 60 foot mast 
with a flag at the Memorial. The Memorial Fund offers a site visit 
to any member of Congress or their staff who would like to visit 
the Memorial and see the existing flagpole. 

And we would ask that the Senators who are on this panel and 
their staffs contact at an appropriate time their delegations, their 
fellow members of their state delegations who are in the House, 
and call their attention to this bill. It is H.R. 1600. It has, unfortu- 
nately, 236 co-sponsors, but I am not sure how many of the co-spon- 
sors really understand the waters that they have set sail in. 

I did bring some material. One of them that you have, Senator, is 
the memorandum of conveyance of the Memorial to the United 
States. And I cite it to point out two things: One is the role of the 
Memorial in working with the Department of the Interior in ap- 
proving any future change to the Memorial, so that the conveyance 
does represent our role as part of the stopgap to any future 
changes. 

And finally, I would like to point out a problem. It is on page 5 of 
the memorandum of conveyance. In it you see that the artist who 
designed the statue and created it reserved the copyright to the 
statute for purposes of earning money. 

That causes a great deal of trouble to the Memorial Fund and we 
would prefer that, if there was any graceful way to do it, that the 
Congress express its sentiments that any designs of statues be 
given completely to the United States and that there be no profit 
made on them. 

One other item that I brought was pertinent extracts from the 
story of how the Memorial got built. It is a book called "To Heal a 
Nation," and the extracts refer specifically to the background that 
is pertinent both to this discussion, showing that it is a process 
that you are involved in, and to the specific agreement that was 
made as to the location of the present flagpole. And that is perti- 
nent to the question of reopening the whole fight over where a 
flagpole should go or where the present statue should go. 



33 



I brought one other item, which is a photograph that shows that 
there is a flagpole there. It is available to the press, and I would 
ask that, provided it is not too expensive to print it in the record, 
that the photograph and then along with that the items that I have 
just cited and the letter of invitation to the Memorial Fund from 
Senator Durenberger be placed in the record. 

Finally, it has been my own experience and the experience of 
others involved in building the Memorial that the best interpreta- 
tion and understanding of it comes on a spiritual level, that much 
of the work we have done has been work that has proceeded in 
faith that we are doing the right thing, and that we are dealing 
with something that is very central to our country's heart. And I 
think you will sense that as you evaluate this issue. 

I would like to thank Beth, also Mary Hope of your staff and 
Randy Scheunemann of Senator Durenberger's staff, for putting 
this hearing together amidst a lot of controversy. And one thing I 
notice is that they all have a sense of humor, which made it a lot 
easier to get the work done. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The information referred to follows:] 



34 



CERTIFICATE OF AOTHENTICITY 



The undersigned hereby certifies that the attached document 4 
entitled "Memorandum of Conveyance" dated November II, 1984 is a 
true and complete copy of the Memorandum of Conveyance on file at . 
the United States Department of the Interior. 



Robert Frank 



Sicr 



Wy 



crebfery, Vietnam Memorial 
Funo, Inc. 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this U. lA^ilt day of 
1986. 




My commission expires: 0-^7-SP 



35 



MEMORANDUM OF CONVEYANCE 

Thin Memorandum of Conveyance between the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc. ("the WMF"), and the 
United States Department of the Interior shall govern the 
conditions under which the WMF shall convey all of its 
rights, title, and interect, except as hereinafter reserved, 
to the Department of the Interior to all those monuments, 
walkways, statues, objects, and other itens now situated in 
Constitution Gardens in the District of Columbia knovTi as and 
constituting the Vietnarr. Veterans Memorial. 

To aid in the interpretation of this document, as well 
as to state the conditions impelling this transfer, it is 
important to recite key elements of the history of the Vietnarr. 
Veterans Memorial and the WMF up until this point. 

The WKF was incorporated as a nonprofit corporation in 
the District of Columbia on April 27, 1979, with the purpose 
of raising funds for the erection of a monument to American 
veterans of the Vietnam war. On July 1, 1980, the President 
of the United States signed Public Law 96-297 authorizing the 
Wys to erect the Memorial on a two-acre site near the Lincoln 
Memorial in honor and recognition of the men and women of the 
Armed Forces of the United States who served in the Vietnam 
war. The Memorial was to be erected without government funds. 



36 



? 

Under the statute, the Secretary of the Interior was 
responsible for determining that sdequate funds were available 
prior to groundbreaking and for maintaining and caring for the 

completed Memorial. 

The WMF raised funds for the Memorial through an 
extensive mail solicitation campaign and from veterans 
organizations, corporations, foundations, community groups, 
and others. In 1961 the WKF held a competition open to all 
Americans in order to select e design for the Memorial. The 
design was to be reflective and contemplative, harmonious with 
its site and environment, contain inscriptions of the names of 
the dead and missing from the Vietnar war, and m.ake no politi- 
cal statement about the war. The winning design, approved by 
the Secretary of the Interior, the Comir.ission on Fine Arts, 
and the National Capital Plarjninc Comir.iEEion , was a V-shaped 
memorial of polished black granite. The nalnes of the dead and 
missing American casualties of the war were to be inscribed on 
the walls. 

The design of the MeiTiorial , like the war whose American 
soldiers it memorializes, has been controversial from the 
outset. To meet objections to the original design, a flagpole 
and statue have been added to the design. After approval by 
the appropriate authorities, ground was broken in March 1982 
and dedicated at a National Salute to Vietnam Veterans during 
the week of Veterans Day, 1982. 



37 



3 

Despite the early controveriy over its deBign, the 
Memorial has succeeded in attracting the public far beyond 
anyone's original expectations. In its brief existence it has 
become one of the most heavily visited monuments in the 
Nation's Capital. And for many who visit it, the Memorial has 
succeeded aE a participatory monument that promotes reflec- 
tion and contemplation. It has, in short, become hallowed 
ground . 

Today, the Memorial stands virtually complete, a 
testament to five years' hard work by the members and staff of 
the WKF. It is time, however, for the staff of the wys to 
go on to other affairs of life and thus, the Wys , its funds 
almost depleted by construction of the Menorial, now intends 
to exist indefinitely as an unstaffed organization, adding and 
correcting names on the Memorial, holding annual meetings, 
essiEting with Bemi-annual ceremonies at tht Memorial, and 
serving as an organization able to come in should the Memorial 
need assistance. It is thus time for the Secretary of the 
Interior, pursuant to his authority and obligation under 
section 4 of Public Law 96-297, to maintain and care for the 
Memorial . 

Therefore, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc., by 
virtue of its authority under the laws of the District of 
Columbia and the United States of America, does hereby 



38 



4 

transfer •ni) convey, release and remiae to tht- Department 
of the Interior, United States of America, all of ita rightr, 
title, and interest, except as hereinafter reaerved, and 
dedicates to the public the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The 
Department of the Interior, United States of America, hereby 
accepts this conveyance. 

1. In recognition of its interest in the ongoing 
Buccesf of the Memorial, the Department of the Interior shall 
notify the WKJ" in writino of any intended or proposed chanqef 
whether temporary or permanent (other than insignificant 
changes associated with ordinary maintenance and care) in the 
design, configuration, or landscapings of the Memorial (includ- 
ing walkways, statues, and all other objects hereby conveyed), 
and the WKF shall have the opportunity to discuss any such 
changes with representatives of the Department of the 
Interior . 

2. Kith special attention to the controversy 
surrounding the Memorial and the war whose veterans it honors, 
and as part of its obligation to maintain and care for the 
Memorial, the Department of the Interior shall, subject to 
appropriations and temporary emergencies elsewhere, continue 
to provide high-level security, including frequent patrols and 
lighting, at the Memorial at all times. 



39 



3. In recognition of the Importance of dealing fairly 
and responEibly with membera of the public who may have lost 
loved ones in the Vietnam conflict, the Department of the 
Interior shall ensure that it has a representative able 
properly to answer correspondence and inquiries. 

4. In recognition of its special role in the erection 
of the Memorial, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc., may 
participate with the National Park Service in ceremonies at 
the Memorial on Memorial Day and on Veterans Day. 

5. The Vietnan- Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc., shall, 
consistent with Federal regulations governing use of the 
Memorial, from time to time add to the Memorial wall the names 
of those determined by the proper processes to have died as a 
result of injuries sustained in the Vietnair. war. The 
Department of the Interior shall permit the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial Fund, Inc., all access to the Memorial reasonably 
necessary to the WMF to fulfill this assumed responsibility. 

6. This conveyance explicitly excludes a transfer of 
the copyright to the statue "The Three Servicemen." Copyright 
in the statue shall be retained by the WKF and Frederick 
Hart, their successors, and assigns. 



40 



7. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc., shall 
maintain residual funds to assist with repairs in the event of 
damage to the Memorial requiring, because of its catastrophic 
nature, more than ordinary maintenance to restore the Memorial 
to its original completed condition. The WMF shall, in 
addition, retain residual funds aufficient to add to the 
Memorial wall the names of those determined to have died in 
the VietnaiP war. 

Executed at Washington, D.C., this 1 \ "th ^^V °^ 
November, 1984. 



VIETNAK VETERANS MEMORIAL 
FUND, INC. 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 
OF THE INTERIOR 



By : 



)cnt^jft;Op^ 



Jan S/rfuggs, Presadent 



":y^, 



John Wheeler, Chairmsn 



^y JLU 




"ki iTi air" P . C lark 
Secretary 



Witness: 



The President of tht* 



United States 



41 



T 






THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL 



Jan C. Scruggs and Joel L. Swerdlow 



oL 



1817 



HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS, New York 

Cambridge, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Lx>ndon 
Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Singapore, Sydney 



42 



But we . . . shaU be remembered; 
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; 
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me 
Shall be my brother; . . . 



William Shakespeare 
Henry V 



43 




APRIL 26, 1981: NATIONAL DAY OF RECOGNITION 

ON FEBRUARY 24, 1981, President Reagan presented the Congression- 
al Medal of Honor to Roy P. Benavidez, a retired Army sergeant. It had 
been lost in bureaucratic red tape for over a decade. Like most of the other 
239 Medals of Honor awarded for Vietnam service, it was being given to 
a soldier who risked everything for his fellow GI's. On May 2, 1968, 
Benavidez had saved eight Green Berets, while he himself was seriously 
wounded and experiencing heavy enemy fire. "They [the vets] were 
greeted by no parades, no bands, no waving of the flag they so proudly 
served," Reagan said. "It's time to show our pride in them and and thank 
them." 

A few weeks later, the President once again asked America to honor 
its Vietnam vets. He officially proclaimed April 26 a National Day of 
Recognition for Veterans of the Vietnam Era. 

Despite emotions generated by the hostage release, the Day of Rec- 
ognition generated little public response. Only 50 people turned out in 
Philadelphia; a ceremony in Minneapolis attracted less than 100 people. 

To help draw attention to the Vietnam Memorial, two vets — one 
former infantryman and one former paratrooper — walked 818 miles from 
Jacksonville, Illinois, to the Mall in Washington, D.C. American Legion 
posts along the way gave them food, shelter, and moral support; and at 

60 



44 



6 1 ipSo-ipSi 

the Ohio-Indiana border they were joined by Homer Tutor, whose son 
had been killed in Vietnam. "My wife and I want to see our son's name 
on the monument," he explained. He had intended only to cross Ohio 
with the two ex-GI's, but stayed all the way to Washington. 

About 150 people, including vets on crutches and in wheelchairs, 
joined the walkers as they crossed the Potomac. "It would have been nice 
to have a bigger reception for these guys," Scruggs told reporters. "Well, 
maybe the Americans killed in Vietnam don't mean that much to a lot 
of people." He looked at the small crowd. Representatives of veterans 
organizations were there, but where were the senators and congressmen, 
and generals and admirals? 

"I don't know what is wrong with us," a CBS commentator noted. 
"President Reagan [is] trying to cut out a measly twelve million dollars 
that supports neighborhood outreach centers that help Vietnam vets who 
still can't adjust to what happened to them on our behalf. And Vietnam 
Veterans Recognition Day gets no recognition. 

"A lot of us hated the war, but I never thought we hated our fellow 
citizens whom we sent out there to do the fighting for us. ... If all the 
people who go through Arlington so reverently every day would send 
a dollar to the Memorial Fund, we could erase part of the stain of dishonor 
our forgetting these veterans has brought to us." 



THE JURY DELIBERATES 

On Friday, March 14, businessman Ross Perot announced that he 
would underwrite the design competition — at a cost of $160,000. "They 
served with honor and are every bit as much heroes as are the veterans 
of every war since the American Revolution," he told reporters. 

Some of the vets were upset. Acting on his own, Scruggs had solic- 
ited and accepted a sizable contribution. From one perspective, this was 
great. For a small organization, no $160,000 donation could be easily 
ignored. But Perot's generosity might make him feel he had a special 
license to comment on whatever design was eventually selected. 

On the day the entries were trucked to Andrews AFB, Doubek 
realized that an unforeseen problem had to be solved. Pigeons were living 
in the empty hangar and would drop their waste on the artwork. A 



45 



62 To Heal a Nation 

suggestion was made: "Buy some pellet guns and the guards will take care 
of it while on duty," the officer suggested. 

The jury was scheduled to conduct its deliberations from Monday, 
April 27, to Friday, May i, when it would present its recommendation to 
the WMF. 

On Sunday evening, April 26, the Fund hosted a dinner for volun- 
teers and jurors and their spouses at a fancy restaurant. It was a way to 
say thank you for the thousands of unpaid work hours. Doubek had 
warned everyone not even to hint at what sort of memorial was wanted, 
so the evening was filled with much joking and small talk. But unspoken 
fears dominated the veterans' thinking. They had given an extraordinary 
responsibility to men they barely knew, most old enough to be their 
fathers or grandfathers. What if the the jury came up with something 
lousy? Or controversial? Or insulting? Anything could happen. Plenty 
could go wrong. 

The dinner's highlight came when one juror became drunk. He 
rambled on about war and death, and then tried to drink his chocolate 
mousse. 

Right before the evening ended, Scruggs gave the jurors a pep talk. 
"Do your best," he said. As he left the room, Scruggs thought, These 
guys are the same age as the people who sent us to 'Nam. 

On Monday morning, the jurors met and selected Grady Qay, 
editor of Landscape Architecture and an expert on urban development, as 
their chairman. 

For one hour they reviewed the competition requirements and dis- 
cussed the principles behind the Memorial. It was to make no political 
statement, and it was to promote healing. 

They then spread out to examine the 1,421 entries, each of which had 
been hung at eye level for easy viewing. The proposed memorials came 
in all shapes, including circles, semicircles, squares, Corinthian columns, 
miniature Lincoln memorials, and peace signs. There were towers, hov- 
ering helicopters, a giant Army helmet, mausoleums, abstract figures, and 
obelisks. Each juror had committed himself to examine every entry at 
least once. 

That evening, a friend of one of the juror's bumped into him at their 
hotel in Georgetown. 

"What's the quality of the entries?" the friend asked. 



46 



63 ipSo-ipSi 



"About what you'd expect." 

"How's it going?" 

"Very strange. One keeps haunting me." 

By noon on Tuesday, 1,189 submissions had been eliminated. The 
remaining 232 were placed together for further examination and discus- 
sion. 

That evening, the juror once again saw his friend. The juror shook 
his head. "It's still haunting me," he said. 

The only WMF official to enter the hangar during this period was 
Doubek, who made sure that the the jurors received whatever logistical 
backup they needed. He was able to see the process of elimination, and 
knew something strange was happening. Number 1026 kept surviving the 
cut. He looked at 1026 over and over again. For the life of me, I can't 
figure out what it is, he kept thinking. 

Scruggs did not sleep well that week. Every night he would come 
home and ask his wife, Becky, "What if this fails? What if Wheeler was 
right and a vet should have been on the jury? What if this group of old 
fellows screws us with some abstract avant-garde work of art that no one 
can relate to? What if we let everyone down?" 

She could only reply, "Don't worry so much. Things have always 
worked out." 

By Thursday, the jury was down to the final 39 entries. Fifteen 
would receive honorable mention. There would be a third place finisher, 
a runner-up, and a winner. 

Number 1026 generated the most comments: "There's no escape 
from its power." "A confused age needs a simple solution." "Totally 
eloquent." "He knows what he's doing, all right." "Presents both solitude 
and a challenge." "No other place in the world like that." "As though 
the ground had subsided away, leaving the rock on which are the names." 
"Shielded from street noise." "People come and experience it, not merely 
look at it." "Looks back to death and forward to life." "Note the reflec- 
tiveness." "Symbolizes the slow start and slow finish to the war in Viet- 
nam." "It's easy to love it." "Visitors can come here and pay homage." 
"Not a thing of joy, but a large space for hope." "Quiet, a place speaking 
of acceptance." "Reverential." "Shows the evolution of the war." 

When they finished a detailed discussion of the final three, Grady 
Clay polled the jurors. The unanimous winner was Number 1026. 



47 



64 To Heal a Nation 



He polled the jury again: 1026. 

Spreiregen spoke to both Doubek and Scruggs that night. 

"Do we have a beauty?" Scraggs asked. 

"I think so. The jury was unanimous. But I feel a little uneasy about 
how you may react." 

Scruggs drove with Don Schaet through a heavy rainstorm to An- 
drews AFB on Friday morning. As they entered the hangar, they saw 
rows and rows of designs hung on metal braces. It was breathtaking. The 
competititors had obviously invested an extraordinary amount of time 
and talent. Even the bad designs seemed to be in good taste. People had 
put heart and soul into their efforts. You could tell just from looking. 

Scruggs walked off by himself to calm down. The Memorial was 
really going to happen! The names were going up on the Mall! 

A flapping sound distracted him. Flopping along the floor was a 
wounded, bloody pigeon. 

Jack Wheeler, Bob Doubek, Sandie Fauriol, John Woods, Bob 
Frank, Art Mosley, George Mayo, Karen Doubek, Kathie Kielich, Don 
Schaet, and Jan Scruggs sat on metal chairs facing the jurors. 

Paul Spreiregen stood and described the process by which a winner 
had been selected. The words poured out. "Unanimous decision." "One 
of the most profound memorials ever built." "Exciting." 

A juror went behind the curtain and brought out the number-three 
design, which would receive a $5,000 award. Scruggs recognized the 
work of Frederick Hart. It was great. Beautiful. He could not wait to see 
the next one. 

The second-place winner, which would receive $10,000, looked 
weird to Scruggs. It was like a giant pile of twisted steel dumped on two 
marble pillars. 

He pushed deeper into his chair, and felt good. The next one would 
be a winner, a great design. 

Then it came. A big bat. A weird-looking thing that could have been 
from Mars. Scruggs smiled. Maybe a third-grader had entered the compe- 
tition and won. All the Fund's work had gone into making a huge bat 
for veterans. Maybe it symbolized a boomerang — the names of dead GI's 
bouncing back right in front of the White House and Congress — where 
it had all begun. 

Silence hit. One second. Two seconds. Three seconds. 

Wheeler felt the confusion around him. It was hard to envision the 



48 



65 1980-1981 

pastel sketches as finished stone. But he began to see it: massive, longer 
than a football field. Every name. Every name. 

The moment was slipping away. It was time for commitment. "This 
is a work of genius," Wheeler said. 

The group applauded. 

Jury chairman Grady Clay had joined Spreiregen in explaining the 
winner: "Of all the proposals submitted, this most clearly meets the spirit 

and formal requirements of the program This memorial with its wall 

of names becomes a place of quiet reflection and a tribute to those who 
served their nation in difficult times. ... All who come here can find it 
a place of healing. . . . The designer has created an eloquent place where 
the simple setting of earth, sky, and remembered names contains mes- 
sages for all who will know this place." 

Spreiregen pointed out that the honorable mentions came from a 
solid geographic cross-section of America — Iowa, Texas, Michigan, Ari- 
zona, Gilifornia, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Minnesota, Indiana, 
Maryland . . . 

The vets then asked some tough questions. How will GI's who did 
not die be honored? How will we explain this strange design to the 
public? How will it affect fund-raising? How much will it cost to con- 
struct? 

The jurors worked hard to explain their decision. The design, they 
said, would stand the test of time. It was not a retreat to past notions of 
glory. It was not a war memorial; it was a memorial to honor service. But 
it would be controversial. 

Some of the jurors' answers were were less than satisfying. The 
design, they said, was still at the idea stage. During "design refinement" 
the vets could make adjustments, such as adding an inscription to honor 
all of those who served. 

The vets immediately recognized that they had a tremendous public 
relations problem. The drawings looked terrible. At least five minutes of 
explanation were necessary before the design could be understood. "If 
people say we're putting up a black hole," Wheeler warned, "we're going 
to get murdered." 

"Great art is a complex matter," Clay responded. "All great works 
furnish material for endless debate. We are certain this will be debated 
for years to come. This is healthy and ought to be expected. All knowl- 



49 



66 To Heal a Nation 



edge cannot be self-explaining in two seconds." 

The jurors thought one enemy lay waiting: government bureaucrats 
who would "chew up" the design during the approval process. 

The vets had expected that the winner would be a prominent profes- 
sional working with a prestigious firm. Doubek looked up Number 1026. 
"Maya Ying Lin." An Oriental name. She was 21 years old. She lived in 
New Haven, Qtnnecticut. Wheeler recognized the address. An under- 
graduate residence at Yale. 

Doubek shouted, "This started as one man's dream. Let's hear what 
he thinks." 

Scruggs walked to the front. "Well," he said, "I really like it. It's a 
great memorial." He kept smiling as everyone clapped and cheered. But 
he was thinking, It's weird and I wish I knew what the hell it is. 

The vets could have rejected the design. Or they could have told the 
jury. Thanks for your recommendation, we want to think about it. In- 
stead, they voted unanimously to endorse the jury's action. Most were 
already convinced that they had a great work of art. 

. "Do you really think this thing is going to go over with the general 
public?" Scruggs whispered to John Woods. 

*You would be surprised how sophisticated the general public really 



is." 



*I sure as hell hope you're right.' 



50 

80 



BLACK GASH OF SHAME 



The vets wanted a noncontroversial, apolitical memorial. Maybe this ; 
was naive. Vietnam had been America's most controversial, politicized '■ 
war. 

They wanted one memorial to "symbolize the experience of the 
Americans who fought in Vietnam." Maybe this was idealistic. Too ; 
many experiences were festering in too much leftover repressed emotion. 

They wanted to list the dead. Maybe this was asking for unnecessary 
trouble. Any reminder that real people die in war inevitably angers those 
who see war as a playing field for heroes. 

What they wanted had seemed so simple. Maybe too much blood 
had been shed for it to have worked out that way. 

In any event, the controversy, predicted by Wheeler back in 1979, 
finally arrived. 

TTie first rumblings had started close to home. Shortly after Maya 
Lin's first press conference, James Webb — who had considered himself 
unqualified to sit on the jury — said Maya Lin's design was unacceptable. 
"Why is it black?" he asked. "Why is it underground?" 

UTieeler urged Webb to wait, "to give the design time to grow on 
you." Webb agreed. 

That same week, a former WMF volunteer named Tom Carhart 
— who had entered his own design in the competition — showed up. "Oh, 
boy," he said to Doubek, "what did you guys do?" 

As soon as he left, Doubek dug out Carhart's entry. It showed an 
officer holding a dead young G I up to heaven as though in sacrifice. The 
officer was standing in a huge Purple Heart. 



51 



81 ip8o-ip8i 

Wheeler, Mosley, and Carhart had been classmates at West Point. 
Girhart called Mosley. "I just can't live with this," he said. "There have 
been a lot of us who've been looking for a memorial to celebrate and 
glorify the Vietnam veteran." 

Then, on September i8, 1981, the National Review called the Memo- 
rial "Orwellian glop." 

"Okay, we lost the Vietnam War," the magazine said. "Okay, the 
thing was mismanaged from start to finish. But the American soldiers 
who died in Vietnam fought for their country and for the freedom of 
others and they deserve better than the outrage that has been approved 
as their memorial. ... the Reagan Administration should throw the 
switch on this project, whether through executive action or a bill in 
Ojngress." 

The National Review carried great weight with the so-called New 
Right — which included Interior Secretary James Watt and many mem- 
bers of Congress. What if they took the magazine's suggestion seriously? 
Gjngress could pressure Watt into killing the Memorial. Worse, Watt 
might not need much pushing. He considered himself a superpatriot. He 
was tough, and he was willing to cause controversy. He had already said 
in public that all U.S. citizens fell into two categories, "liberals and 
Americans." Thus, he might grandstand against liberal influence in the 
arts and insist upon an American memorial imbued with his views of 
patriotism. 

The WMF could have rallied its troops, most of whom believed 
that the Memorial was well on its way to a problem-free dedication in 
November 1982. Allies on Capitol Hill, in the White House, and in 
veterans organizations could have been alerted. The extensive network 
of vet volunteers could have been mobilized. But the WMF, its over- 
worked seven-person staff focusing on fund-raising and construction 
plans, did not launch a counteroffensive. 

On October 13, 1981, the Fine Arts Commission was scheduled to 
review granite samples — a boring, routine, construction detail. When 
Fund officials arrived, they found the hearing room overflowing with 
journalists, including television camera crews. This was the first time 
television had covered any hearings involving the Memorial. The reason: 
Tom Carhart, wearing a three-piece suit with two Purple Hearts pinned 
on, was waiting to testify. 

In his statement, Carhart called the Memorial "a black gash of 



52 



82 To Heal a Nation 

shame." The phrase had a nice ring to it, and numerous newspapers — 
including the New York Times — prominently reprinted portions of his 
testimony. 

Fund officials tried to contain the damage. "There's a lot of anger 
and there's a shortage of things to show your anger about," Scruggs told 
reporters. "We get some of the misdirected anger." 

It did not work. Journalists paid little attention to Scruggs, while 
Carhart received front-page treatment. It did not matter that Carhart 
represented only himself, or that he had waited for over six months to 
complain about a competition that he himself had entered and lost. Car- 
hart was creating news: angry Vietnam vet against the art establishment; 
Vietnam veterans getting screwed again; an impending civil war among 
Vietnam vets. It made an interesting story. People who had never before 
heard about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial began to think it was a black 
gash of shame. 

From a historical perspective, the criticism of Maya Lin's design 
followed a well-established pattern. "What is really fascinating about the 
history of monument building in this city," Benjamin Forgey wrote in 
the Washington Post, "is that in almost every case, whether the product 
resulted from a competition or a commission, certain clear divisions 
occur: Professional standards versus popular taste, modernity versus tra- 
dition, abstract symbolism versus realist representation." 

In television appearances, newspaper interviews, visits to Congress, 
and telephone conversations with vets across the country. Fund officials 
tried to explain why criticism such as Carhart's was factually incorrect: 



"The Memorial is below ground, denoting shame." 

Not true. It will be cut in a hillside and will enjoy a clear line of sight 
to the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. It will have 
a southern exposure, so it will be sunny all day. Lowering the wall makes 
it possible for everyone to read every name. 

"There is no flag. This dishonors those who died fighting for that 
flag." 



Most war memorials do not have flags. 



53 



83 ipSo-ipSi 

"It is black, a color of shame." 

The Seabee and the Iwo Jima memorials have black granite, and no 
one says this denotes shame. White stone would not work, because 
visitors could not read the names, especially in the sunlight. As General 
William Westmoreland notes, "Polished black granite is more handsome 
than any other possible stone." 

"It forms the antiwar 'V peace sign." 

This is not a "V." One arm of the Memorial will point toward the 
Lincoln Memorial; the other will point toward the Washington Monu- 
ment. The angle is 125 degrees. No human hand could form a "V" at such 
an angle. 

"It is a tombstone, honoring only those who died." 

It will be contemplative, not death-oriented. The names of all 2.7 
million who served cannot be engraved. Who would deny special treat- 
ment for those who died or remain missing? An inscription will honor 
all Vietnam vets. 

"It is unheroic." 

Heroism is in'the eyes of the beholder. There is plenty of heroism 
in those names. Wait until you see them right there on the Mall with 
Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. 

"It should be representational." 

Maybe. But a great nonrepresentational work of art emerged victori- 
ous from an extremely fair, open competition. Furthermore, the names 
are a representational symbol that everyone will understand and honor. 
The American people watched the Vietnam War on television. They do 
not need a representation of what they already know. They need some- 
thing to help them see the veterans they have managed to ignore. 

"The names on the wall will have no rank or service designation." 

This is a memorial to human beings, not a military symbol. They 
are all Americans, and they all made an equal sacrifice to their country. 
No other designation is necessary. 



54 



84 To Heal a Nation 

"The word 'Vietnam' is not mentioned." 

Incorrect. It will be prominently featured in an inscription. 

"It will become the site of future antiwar demonstrations." 

All demonstrations, pro- or antiwar, will be banned. It is a place to 
honor veterans. 

WATT ACTS 

Attacks continued throughout November and December. 

Carhart circulated a memo within the White House and Interior 
Department carrying false charges that a member of the jury had been 
involved with communists. 

Webb resigned from the National Sponsoring Committee and tried 
to get other vets to join him. Westmoreland refused, saying, "Beauty is 
in the eyes of the beholder." 

Figuring that Webb must have written to every Vietnam vet on the 
Sponsoring Committee, Scruggs called former Admiral James J. Stock- 
dale, who had been a senior American prisoner of war in Vietnam and 
had received the Congressional Medal of Honor. They had talked several 
times before. Stockdale had been nice, but always too busy to learn more 
about the Memorial or to offer anything but his name on the letterhead. 

"Admiral, I realize that you've received Webb's letter," Scruggs 
said. "It is unfortunate that there is disagreement about the design, but 
I'd like to explain." 

Build the Memorial rising and white, Stockdale said. Make it inspir- 
ing. 

Scruggs tried to explain the beauty of polished black granite and that 
the Memorial would not be hidden underground. 

The telephone went dead. James Stockdale, who had endured years 
of North Vietnamese torture in the name of freedom, had hung up on 
him. 

Only Stockdale joined Webb. Gerald Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Bob 
Hope, Nancy Reagan, Jimmy Stewart, William C. Westmoreland, and 
every other member of the National Sponsoring Committee remained 
firmly on the side of the Memorial. 



55 



85 ipSo-ip8i 



It was a strange public relations war. Opponents found sanctuary in 
faceless rumor and innuendo. Denials, no matter how well documented, 
only escalated the conflict. 

The press played an important role. Vets attacking the Memorial 
were big news; vets explaining and praising it were boring. A Vietnam 
vet on the West Coast suggested that the Memorial should be a three- 
story black plastic M-16 rifle stuck upside down in the ground. Although 
he had no artistic credentials and no backing, newspapers across the 
country carried his smiling picture. Likewise, the IVasbingtonian maga- 
zine gossip page referred to "Vietnam, America's most unpopular war 
and the nation's most divisive monument." 

Although the vets restrained their desire to counterattack, eloquent 
voices spoke out in defense of Maya Lin's design. "It is a pity that this 
voluntary undertaking should recently have been slowed by controversy 
over the memorial design," wrote syndicated columnist James J. Kilpa- 
trick. "Let me venture my own opinion. This will be the most moving 
war memorial ever erected." 

Washington Post critic Wolf Von Eckardt wrote, "Carhart . . . says 
the jury should have consisted of war veterans, as if a beauty contest 
should be judged only by beauties . . . those bothered by abstract design 
might consider that grand obelisk, the Washington Monument. We have 
come to love it. Someday the Vietnam Memorial, too, may win the hearts 
and minds of the American people." 

A National Review article denounced that magazine's "premature 
evaluation" of the Memorial. It will be "beautiful, imposing, and fitting," 
the article concluded. 

The most meaningful statements of support continued to come from 
the American people. Veterans organizations sponsored bingo games, 
bake sales, garage sales, dinner dances, and other activities that generated 
millions of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of veterans and their families 
had been exposed to considerable adverse publicity about Maya Lin's 
design, and yet they continued to donate their time and their dollars. 

A retired Army colonel raised $819 from pledges after running the 
New York City Marathon. He wore a camouflage T-shirt reading "Viet- 
nam Veterans Memorial Fund" and was cheered along the entire 26-mile 
385-yard route. An unemployed Vietnam vet studied Maya Lin's design 
and then mailed in $65. VA hospitals and vet centers conducted "pass the 
helmet" fund-raising campaigns. 



56 



86 To Heal a Nation 



In Mattoon, Illinois, under the guidance of 86-'year-old World War 
I veteran Alf Thompson, over 1,500 people participated in a two-hour 
parade that honored Vietnam veterans. Scruggs served as parade marshal. 
Afterwards, he was the featured guest at a VFW lunch. Three Vietnam 
vets were there, and all expressed support for the Memorial. "Everything 
that Vietnam touches seems to go sour," one said sadly. "I may never 
have the money to get to D.C., but it would make me feel good to know 
that my buddies' names are up there." Parents of a dead Vietnam vet also 
shook his hand. "Don't let them stop you, Jan," the father said. "Those 
folks in Washington are always fooling around with anything good. 
Don't let 'em do it this time." 

The most tense time in fund-raising came in October. Small dona- 
tions continued to come in, but Sandie Fauriol had expected corporate 
donations in the $50,000 range. 

She examined the mail every day, looking for the large envelopes 
that would include corporate checks. There were only smaller personal 
envelopes. Had the controversy cut off corporate funds? Finally, in De- 
cember, the big envelopes started to arrive. Many of America's most 
prestigious corporations— including Getty Oil, LTV, AT&T, Rockwell 
International, Aetna Life Insurance,^ Boeing, Exxon, MCA, Time Inc., 
American Express, and Pepsico — sent sizable checks. 

On December 22, the Veterans of Foreign Wars held a press confer- 
ence at the National Press Qub in Washington to present a four-foot- 
long check for $180,000. An opponent of the Memorial had warned VFW 
officials that "you'll lose every Vietnam veteran member if you give the 
Fund money." But the VFW did not like to be threatened; its officials 
also knew that the membership supported Maya Lin's design. To make 
its position absolutely clear, VFW national commander Arthur J. Fell- 
wock flew in to personally present the check. 

Former Pittsburgh Steeler football star Rocky Bleier also partic- 
ipated. Bleier had served as a grunt in Vietnam, where he was wounded 
in both legs. Doctors had said he'd never walk normally again. But he 
fought back, and had been a star running back on the 1975 Super Bowl 
winner. 

Scruggs picked Bleier up at the airport right before the press confer- 
ence. The 200-pound former private hugged the former corporal, who 
was now down to 140 pounds. "What the hell are you letting those guys 
do?" Bleier asked. "Let's go get 'em." 



57 



87 ipSo-ipSi 

After the press conference, Doubek led the way as two men carried 
out a new six-by-seven-foot model used to explain the Memorial. As he 
walked past two swinging doors, a camera crew waved for him to step 
aside. They were waiting for someone important. 

Doubek recognized who it was. Henry Kissinger. 

The former Secretary of State already had his overcoat on and 
seemed in a hurry. "What's that?" he asked Doubek. 

"That's a model for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial." 

"Is that the design that's causing all the controversy?" 

Doubek started to say. It's not really controversial, but he stopped 
himself. "Yes, that's the one." 

"WeU. how does it go?" 

Using the model, Doubek described how the names would be in- 
scribed and how the walls would be situated between the Lincoln Memo- 
rial and the Washington Monument. 

"It's very moving," Kissinger said. 

Two days later, a pei^onal check from Kissinger for $500 arrived. 

One individual, James Watt, continued to hold hfe-or-death power 
over the Memorial. 

VFW executive director Cooper T. Holt, one of Washington's 
smartest political observers, called Scruggs with a warning: Ronald Rea- 
gan's people could not satisfy some of his conservative supporters on 
abortion and school prayer. With congressional eleaions scheduled in 
less than a year, the White House just might throw them a bone — the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 

In late December, conservative Republican congressman Henry 
Hyde of Illinois, a prominent spokesman for right-wing causes, launched 
what he called his "Christmas offensive." Along with 27 colleagues he 
signed a letter to all Republicans in the House asking that they write to 
President Reagan requesting that Interior Secretary Watt not grant con- 
struction approval for the Memorial. 

Reporters called Scruggs for a comment. "What all this goes to 
prove," he said, "is that this country is not recovered from the war. When 
people start ganging up on a guy who's just trying to honor Vietnam 
veterans, I think it's a lot more than aesthetics. It shows we need to do 
a lot more healing." . 

At a late December WMF board meeting, Don Schaet suggested 



58 



88 To Heal a Nation 

that when the Memorial was ready for dedication, a national salute to 
Vietnam veterans should be held. It would have a parade and days of 
festivities. 

Everyone got excited. A cleansing ritual. A welcome home to the 
warriors. A way to diffuse grief by special remembrance of the dead. A 
celebration of life. A public opportunity for the country to show its 
feelings. 

"Why talk about a national salute when there might not be a memo- 
rial?" someone asked. 

"There will never be another time in history when we have this 
opportunity," Wheeler said. "The Memorial can be dedicated right on 
schedule — November 1982." 

They were buried in negative publicity. And some of the nation's 
most powerful political figures seemed poised to destroy their memorial. 
Yet the board voted unanimously to hold a parade on November 13, 1982, 
honoring all Vietnam veterans. 

On January 4, 1982, a letter from Watt arrived. In technical legal 
language, its message was clear. Watt had put the Memorial on hold until 
further notice. 

Late one night, Scruggs went to the Mall and walked up to the statue 
of Abraham Lincoln. 

They were losing their memorial. How did it happen? The competi- 
tion had been fair. No one had complained. The jury had done a good 
job. After the negative publicity, art critics had gone back and examined 
all 1,421 entries. They had concluded that Maya Lin's was by far the most 
brilliant. 

An angry group of less than a dozen men wanted to politicize the 
Memorial. It was easier to destroy than to create. Much easier. Wheeler 
had once remarked that a few angry men could shape history through 
their will to destroy. Look at what had happened to Lincoln. The dream 
of a memorial was about to die. 

Scruggs looked up at Lincoln. The Civil War had been America's 
bloodiest conflict, and yet this memorial carried no sense of violence. It 
was nonpolitical. Nothing favored the North or the South. Nothing said 
that slavery was morally wrong. Or that the Civil War was right. Like 
Maya Lin's design, it provided a sense of history, it was simple, and it 
relied on words. People could read Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and 



59 



89 ipSo-ip8i 

Second Inaugural Address, think about the words, stand quietly, and let 
the feelings flow. They could come away different than when they ar- 
rived. 

Maya Lin's design would do the same thing. Its words were the 
names. Even those who wanted glory had only to pick a name at random. 
Who could deny the glory in a young man willing to risk — and give — 
his life for his country? 

The American people would not tolerate censorship. They would 
not permit anyone to tell them what to think — particularly about any- 
thing as important as all those young soldiers who died in Vietnam. 

The Memorial would be built. Let the American people come here 
with their children. Let the children ask tough questions. Who were 
those people whose names we're seeing? What did they do? What does 
it mean? 



60 

102 To Heal a Nation 



THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 

A White House aide who attended the January 27 meeting con- 
cluded in his official summary that "there is no reason to hold up the plan 
to break ground by March i." 

Opponents felt otherwise. Some sensed that if the wall was com- 
pleted before the statue, then the American people might see no need for 
a statue. Some were afraid that the WMF would not honor its agree- 
ment, or that the Fine Arts Commission or National Capital Planning 
Commission would kill the statue and flag. After all, the Fine Arts Com- 
mission in its original July 1981 approval of Maya Lin's design had warned 
that its "essential simplicity [should] be kept" and that "there should be 
no obtrusive visual elements." Others hated Maya Lin's design so much 
.that they wanted to kill it through endless delays. 

Anti-Memorial pressure continued. A letter to Watt signed by 
Henry Hyde and over three dozen other representatives, for example, 
called her design a "black ditch." 

Memorial supporters did not remain inactive. A telegram to Watt 
from the VFW's national commander read: "Our nation has never given 
the honor and respect due Vietnam veterans. Now the nation is giving 
them respect, and I urge you to do the same by approving this Memorial." 

American Legion national commander Jack W. Fly nt flew to Wash- 
ington for the sole purpose of meeting with Watt to discuss groundbreak- 
ing for the Memorial. He reported that a sampling of 200 Vietnam veteran 
Legionnaires, all with distinguished military and civilian records, found 
that all overwhelmingly supported groundbreaking. "The American Le- 
gion is hardly a hotbed of flag-burning or veteran-snubbing, so you'd 
think any U.S. War Memorial that could pass the Legion's muster would 
be pretty good," read a Baltimore Sun editorial. "Let's get on with it." 

On February 4, the vets met with Watt to report progress. The 
Secretary congratulated them on the compromise and said he was now 
"inclined" to approve groundbreaking. He also said that the design was 
"a terrible political statement." 



61 



103 ipSj 



After leaving Watt's office, Scruggs showed Watt's press secretary 
a statement that he planned to issue to the wire services. The press 
secretary approved it, and UPI and Associated Press quickly carried a 
story quoting Scruggs as saying that Watt "just agreed to let us begin 
construction." The stories also had an ad lib quote from Scruggs: "Bring 
on the bulldozers." 

Late that afternoon Scruggs received a call from Watt. "You're 
worse that the environmentalists," Watt screamed. "What's this crap 
about bulldozers on the Mall? I can just see what the environmentalists 
will do with that." 

"Well, you could just blame it on me." 

Scruggs's comment only seemed to incense Watt. The screams came 
faster and at a higher pitch. "There are two hundred ways that I can kill 
that design and I am tempted to prove that to you." Watt was a wild man 
— and he held life-and-death power over the Memorial. 

One week later, the WMF sent Watt a letter reaffirming their 
commitment to the compromise and documenting that they had enough 
money to complete construction. "We respectfully request your formal 
approval ... so that we may proceed to break ground on schedule during 
the first week of March." 

Monday. Tuesday. Wednesday. No answer from Watt. The March 
I deadline was slipping away. The WMF called Interior. Watt and his 
aides never called back. The American Legion called Watt. Still no 
response. One of the basic rules in Washington is that when a group as 
powerful as the Legion calls, you at least listen politely. Watt just let the 
message slips pile up. On Friday, February 19, the VVMF called Watt 
again and again. If the March i groundbreaking was to occur, a construc- 
tion permit was needed right away. 

"If that son of a bitch doesn't give us a construction permit, we'll 
go after him," Scruggs told WMF staff members. "We'll have a press 
conference and bring in Gold Star Mothers, the VFW, the American 
Legion. He'll wish he had a thousand environmentalists on a hunger 
strike outside Interior. We'll give a 'Vets for Jim Watt's Resignation' 
rally." 

"We have been set up," Wheeler said. "Something's wrong at Inte- 



nor. 



Four o'clock came, then five. They waited until six-thirty, and went 
home feeling defeated. Another week had gone by with no response from 



62 



104 To Heal a Nation 



Watt. Something was up. Someone had gotten to him. On February 25, 
Watt wrote to the Fine Arts Commission and the National Capital Plan- 
ning Commission saying, in effect, "I won't give a construction permit 
until you approve the statue and flag." 

Two days later, the Washington Post reported: "Supporters of the 
Memorial had hoped to have it completed in time to be dedicated on 
Veterans Day, November n, but that now seems unlikely." 

Scruggs called Elliot Richardson, one of the capital's most respected 
public figures. The former Secretary of Defense, who had won two 
Purple Hearts during World War II, had been helping the WMF with 
political advice and fund-raising contacts. "Watt may be playing games 
with you," Richardson said. "This may be a delay designed to be perma- 
nent. This may be the right time to fight Watt, but be very cautious. A 
wrong move could cause an irretrievable loss. Be mindful of the discre- 
tion given Watt under your legislation. Build up a record of reasonable- 
ness in your dealings with him. Do everything you can to avoid a fight, 
but remember the principle of time on target." 

Time on target. Richardson was going back to his military days. It 
meant that all fire — mortars, artillery, planes, everything — strikes a desig- 
nated target at the same moment, giving your enemy little time to take 
cover or to fire back. 

"What will happen if it comes to that?" Scruggs asked. 

"I'll be with you all the way. Call me at home any time." 

On March i, the originally scheduled day of groundbreaking, the 
WMF board of directors held an emergency meeting. They still had no 
groundbreaking permit. Scruggs, Doubek, and a few others wanted to 
declare all-out war on Watt — let the country know that he alone was 
stopping the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Too much had been happen- 
ing behind the scenes. 

Wheeler disagreed. "We could go for the kill," he said. "But if the 
Memorial is going to stand for healing, then we can't breathe hate into 
it. We'll get the statue approved, and prove to Watt that we keep our 
promises. That's the best way to honor vets." 

The Board voted to follow Wheeler's and Richardson's advice. 
They would avoid a fight, while working hard to obtain approval from 
the Fine Arts Commission and the National Capital Planning Commis- 
sion for the statue and flag. 

That night, Wheeler arrived home around midnight. His wife was 



63 



105 ip82 i 

up. Six years earlier, their (laughter, Katie, had been bom with a partially 
unformed trachea, possibly a result of his exposure to Agent Orange 
during service in Vietnam. She had to sleep every night attached to an 
electronic alarm designed to ring if she stopped breathing. Tonight the 
alarm was not working. Wheeler wrapped a blanket around himself and 
pulled a chair up to her bed. He would keep watch. 

Katie was a strong and courageous little girl, full of humor, a perfect 
reminder that battles over a memorial had to be kept in perspective. But 
by the time dawn broke, Wheeler had repeatedly replayed the board's 
decision not to fight back. The WMF was giving extra time and oppor- 
tunity to those who were so passionately commited to killing Maya Lin's 
design. That decision, no matter how idealistic, still seemed correct. Its 
dangers, however, were obvious. In life, the good guys did not always 
win. 

Three days later, on March 4, the National Capital Planning G)m- 
mission approved the statue and flag, in concept, but warned that these 
additions must "be located and designed so as not to compromise or 
diminish the basic design of the memorial as previously approved." 

In its report to Watt, the National Capital Planning Commission 
indicated it would have preferred no additions to Maya Lin's design, but 
that it was responding to the political situation. 

Five days later, on March 9, the Fine Arts Commission similarly 
approved the statue and flag, in principle. 

Although approval for a statue that had not been designed was 
highly unusual. Watt j/i// did not issue the construction permit. Then the 
VVMF understood: The second meeting — to select the statue — was 
scheduled for March 11. The Memorial's opponents had obviously per- 
suaded Watt to wait until after this meeting. If they did not get their way, 
they would have him kill the Memorial. 

Ross Perot sat next to Scruggs when the meeting began, and shortly 
made it clear that, once again, he controlled the majority. The V'\'MF 
had walked into another ambush. 

By voice vote, the agenda was quickly changed. Instead of reviewing 
80 slides of statues that had been submitted as part of the original design 
competition, the meeting focused on where to put the flag and statue. 
This was at best silly. Only the Fine Arts Commission and National 
Capital Planning Commission had power to choose a location for the flag 
and statue. But the debate went on for hours. 



64 



106 To Heal a Nation 

Architect Kent G)oper argued that there was no need to "adorn the 
Memorial with patriotic claptrap." He tried to explain that the American 
flag was too powerful a symbol to be located too close to the wall. Not 
realizing that politics had long since replaced art as the chief battle- 
ground, he called the flag, in architect's jargon, "a long stringy object." 

This only enraged people like Sybil Stockdale, wife of the former 
POW who had resigned from the VVMF. "Let's put art where it be- 
longs," she said. "In the art museums." 

Maya Lin stood silently in the back of the room. She looked small 
and out of place in a room full of swearing vets. 

At one point, Warner asked her, "What do you think of the ideas 
on placement being discussed?" 

She could have said. The statue is a ridiculous idea, or. You'll never 
get away with it, or, I'll fight you all the way and you'll lose. 

But she was in an alien environment, without allies, facing people 
whose passions sometimes made them seem to verge on violence. Her 
voice sounded timid. "If you're going to do this," she said, "it should be 
done in an integrated, harmonious way." 

When someone made a motion to throw out Maya Lin's design and 
start over again, Perot silently shook his head no, and the motion was 
defeated. But by voice vote, the opponents backed a motion to have the 
flag at the center of the two walls, with the statue somewhere in the 
triangle formed by the walls. 

At Perot's suggestion, a majority also agreed to form an ad hoc 
committee to choose the statue. 

Design opponent Milt Copulos wrote in a newspaper article, "Some- 
thing remarkable happened. Veterans split over the issue realized that the 
project was in jeopardy, and chose to set aside their preconceptions and 
come together in an efTort to develop a consensus. . . . Some might argue 
that these changes are mere symbols, and hardly worth the pain and 
anguish they caused. But soldiers fight for symbols — symbols that em- 
body the principles in which they believe. 

"Pain, however, is often a necessary part of healing, and in a very 

real sense, the healing process for the wounds of Vietnam began The 

wall of the memorial could have been a wall between us. Instead, it 
became a bridge." 

Some people, however, still tried to convince Watt not to issue a 



65 



107 ipgj 

construction permit. They wanted approval from the Fine Arts Commis- 
sion and the National Capital Planning Commission for specific place- 
ment of the statue and Hag before a construction permit was issued. 
Others obviously still wanted to kill Maya Lin's design. An assistant 
secretary of Interior, for example, told Doubek that he'd been informed 
it would be criminal to issue a permit for the wall of names. 

Scruggs went to see Senator Warner, the man who had forged the 
compromise. "It's now or never," Scruggs said. "We've got to have that 
permit." 

"We'll get it," Warner said. He grabbed Scruggs's arm. "Once those 
shovels are in the ground, this episode is over." 

Telephone lines connecting Congress, the White House, and the 
Interior Department were put to heavy use. Washington's power brokers 
were once again assessing whether the Vietnam vets should be given their 
memorial. 

The moment of truth had arrived. "What Arthur Miller said of 
people in his play After the Fall seems equally true of nations," Vietnam 
vet Joseph Zengerle wrote in the Washington Post. " 'One must finally 
take one's life in one's arms.' " 

At ii:oo A.M. on Monday, March 15, Doubek called from the National 
Park Service headquarters. "I've got it," he said. "I've got the damned 
permit!" 

Everyone at the office cheered. Wheeler brought over a bottle of 
champagne. When it was empty, he reminded everyone that Watt still 
could be persuaded to revoke the permit. "Get the construction crews on 
the site," he said. "Now!" 

The construction foreman was a combat vet. He stood with Scruggs 
out on the Mall. 

"Do you know what it looks like after a B-52 raid?" Scruggs asked. 

"I know a little about that." 

Scruggs nodded toward the beautifully manicured grass where the 
Memorial would stand. 

"Can you make this look like one of those raids? Can you give us 
a lot of holes all over the place that no one could ever fill?" 

The foreman smiled. "Sure. I've had plenty of practice." 

If Watt ever tried to revoke the construction permit, he would have 
a lot of explaining to do. 



66 



Epilogue 



IN EARLY 1983, government commissions decided to put the statue and 
flag in an entrance plaza leading to the wall. The flag began flying from 
its 60-foot staff in mid-1983. At its base are emblems of the five services. 
The statue was installed on Veterans Day 1984. 

Lights, five permanent name-location guidebooks, and an expanded 
walkway have been added. 

The Memorial now belongs to the U.S. government. Over 650,000 
people paid for it with their private contributions. 

As work was completed, some of the opponents publicly accused the 
WMF of financial impropriety, a charge repudiated by a major federal 
audit of Fund records. Opponents also tried unsuccessfully to get Con- 
gress to pass a law placing the statue in front of the walls. They may 
forever continue their war on Maya Lin's design. Somehow their anger 
about the Vietnam War, rather than turning toward healing, seems trans- 
formed into permanent hatred. 

Over five million people visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
during its first two years. It is the second most visited memorial in the 
nation's capital. On some days, over 20,000 people come. Late at night, 
at dawn, someone is always there. 

Most visitors touch the wall or hug each other. They linger and talk, 

159 



67 



160 To Heal a Nation 



and carry part of it away with them. U.S. News & World Report called 
it in late 1983, one year after its dedication, "the most emotional ground 
in the nation's capital." 

Black granite does not wear out. Hundreds and thousands of years 
from now, people can still touch the names. 

People are awed, perhaps most of all, by its reflectiveness. Jack 
Wheeler, in a prayer on Veterans Day 1983, said: 

Who among us 

was not touched, 

or even wounded, in some way by the Vietnam War? 

The walls shine like mirrors. 

So we begin to see hurts inside us, too, 

when we see our own reflections 

in the walls. 

The Memorial does not dictate any emotion or political view. The 
more you look, the more you'll see. 

Is healing happening? 

If so, Vietnam vets have led the way. 

Is it helping Vietnam vets? 

The country can no longer ignore them. 

Is it helping nonvets? 

They now know that healing begins only when you look deeply into 
yourself and when you honor those who have suffered on your behalf. 

Is America more at peace with its own history and better able to 
control its future? 

Americans are learning that to forget too easily only increases pain 
and invites repetition of past mistakes. 

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, "Show me a hero and I will write 
you a tragedy." 

Maybe Vietnam vets are forever condemned to be the most tragic 
of all heroes — those whose bravery was wasted. 

"No!" the Memorial shouts. "It must not be." The names rise from 
the earth. Even on the coldest days they are somehow warm. They speak. 
To their buddies. To their wives and children. To mothers, fathers, 
brothers, and sisters. To all young Americans who must prepare for 
future wars. 



68 



161 Epilogue 

To all the politicians. 

To all the generals. 

To everyone who tries to understand: 

. . . We were young. We have died. Remember us. 

. . . We have done what we could but until it is finished it 
is not done. 

. . . We have given our lives but until it is finished no one 
can know what our lives gave. 

. , . Our deaths are not ours; they are yours; they will mean 
what you make them. 

. . . Whether our lives and our deaths were for peace and a 
new hope or for nothing we cannot say; it is you who 
must say this. 

. . . We leave you our deaths. Give them their meaning. 

We were young. . . . We have died. Remember us. 



69 



DAVE DURENBERGER 

MINNESOTA 



Bnitd States ^tmz 

WASHINGTON, DC 20B10 



February 16, 1988 

Mr. John Wheeler 

Chairman of the Board 

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund 

Dear Mr. Wheeler, 

I am writing regarding an issue of great importance to the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund — the proposed Vietnam Women's 
Memorial. As you may know, I have introduced legislation that 
would authorize the construction of a statue of a female Vietnam 
Veteran at our nation's Vietnam Veterans Memorial. This 
legislation -- S. 2042 — currently has more than 40 Senate 
co-sponsors and will be the subject of hearings before the 
Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Public Lands, 
National Parks and Forests on February 23, 1988. 

I am aware of the central role your organization had in the 
establishment of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial under the 
provisions of Public Law 96-297. I am also aware of the WMF's 
position concerning design changes in the Memorial. In light of 
these historical and legal considerations, and in light of the 
fact that the WMF is specifically mentioned in S. 2042, I 
respectfully request that you make every effort to testify 
during the February 23, 1988 hearing. 

In my view, it is imperative that my colleagues on the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee receive the benefit of 
your insight and expertise on this issue. In order to proceed 
in a deliberative and thorough manner, it is vital that the 
Senate hear testimony from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. 

As you know, I am a strong supporter of the proposed Vietnam 
Women's Memorial. I want to insure that hearings on S. 2042 
include testimony from the organization most responsible for the 
V^ietnaa Veterans Memorial. Thank you for your consideration in 
this matter. 

Lincerel* 






Dave Durenberger 
United states Senate 
DD/r js 



70 




  xtooKfF^ ':^-B#!««»aate*nes-ir**9*!r«»:<TC^TWffl0^«&ff J >.«'tfC£«Be: 



A 12 by 18 foot flag flies at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 24 hours 
a day. The flagpole is located just a few feet from the statue of 
the "Three Servicemen" and near the walkway leading to the Memorial 
walls. The base of the flagpole has an inscription and the emblem 
of the five U.S. military services, and was designed to be placed 
for public viewing. 



71 



Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much. 

Let me say that you made a couple of points there that, interest- 
ingly enough, Mrs. Bumpers made at breakfast this morning, and 
that was, I might say that she favors this bill. 

[Applause.] 

Senator Bumpers. But the point she was making this morning is 
that it is symbolic for the children of this country, that it means a 
great deal so far as women are concerned, from that standpoint. 
Plus the other very gripping point you made, that these nurses 
were often the last person a dying man had an opportunity to talk 
to, which is indeed a very good point. 

Mr. Wheeler, your testimony has been very good and thoughtful, 
and we appreciate very much you being with us. 

Mr. Wheeler. Senator, you asked one question about people who 
died of wounds, particularly the gentleman that you mentioned. 

Senator Bumpers. Yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. All right. If someone dies of wounds and that is 
verified as a direct death caused by wounds by the VA 

Senator Bumpers. By the attending physician? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes. Then that person goes on the wall, and some 
of the names that we add are people who died of wounds. And we 
think we will be doing that all the way up to 

Senator Bumpers. How many names were added last year, Mr. 
Wheeler? 

Mr. Wheeler. I do not know the answer. It is something like 75 
or 80 names. I know that there may be people in the room who 
have that answer. But by now we have added something like 200 
names to the Memorial. 

Some of those are people that we did not know had been killed in 
action. Some of them are people who were killed in aircraft acci- 
dents, and some of them are people who died of wounds. 

Now, there are 300,000 men who were wounded and not all of 
them will die as a result of wounds, and it is simply not possible for 
us to add 300,000 names to the Memorial. 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you again very much, Mr. Wheeler, for 
coming. 

Our next witnesses consist of our first panel: E. Philip Riggin, Di- 
rector of the National Legislative Commission of the American 
Legion; James N. Magill, Director, National Legislative Service of 
the VFW; Richard Schultz, Associate National Legislative Director, 
DAV; Mary Stout, National President, Vietnam Veterans of Amer- 
ica, Inc.; Donna-Marie Boulay, Chairman, Vietnam Women's Me- 
morial Project; Evangeline Jamison, Walnut Creek, California; 
Karen Johnson, Esquire, Little Rock, Arkansas. 

Now, members of this panel, we will start using our lighting 
system. Those of you who have testified here before are familiar 
with the lighting system. 

And you are requested to summarize if you can. If you cannot, I 
understand. That is not easy to do when you have worked on testi- 
mony. I know that some of you have worked very hard to present 
thoughtful testimony. When I was Governor and first came up here 
to testify and they would tell me to summarize, I did not know 
what to do. So certainly I know how difficult that is sometimes. 



72 



But we are going to limit testimony to five minutes, which was 
understood beforehand. Everybody knows that, and we hope you 
can get it all in, in that length of time. 

And I am going to take you here just as you are on my list. Mr. 
Riggin, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF E. PHILIP RIGGIN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 
LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION 

Mr. Riggin. Mr. Chairman, we certainly will observe your time 
constraints and we will fall well v^dthin that 5-minute limit. 

The American Legion does welcome the opportunity to present 
its views on legislation to authorize the construction of a statue at 
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in recognition of women who 
served in the Vietnam War. We support the bill under consider- 
ation, S. 2042. 

Our support of this undertaking is an extension of our support 
for the Memorial itself. As you may know, the American Legion 
raised more than one million dollars for the Memorial's construc- 
tion back in the early 1980's. Virtually all of this money consisted 
of small contributions from thousands of our members, as well as 
other concerned Americans. 

Previous expressions of support for the current initiative by our 
organization have been in various forms. Following the adoption in 
1985 of the resolution endorsing this idea, our national commander 
in July of 1987 reaffirmed that position in a letter to President 
Reagan. Similar expressions were subsequently presented to the In- 
terior Secretary and to the Fine Arts Commission. 

Mr. Chairman, S. 2042 is very precise in stating its purpose and 
in our opinion it accommodates the normal approval mechanism 
for projects of this type. We feel that section 2 of the bill is particu- 
larly clear in communicating the sense of Congress by reaffirming 
what Congress intended with the enactment of Public Law 96-297. 

We also note with some interest, Mr. Chairman, that there are 
currently 49 co-sponsors to this legislation in the United States 
Senate, and of course on this particular Subcommittee there are six 
co-sponsors. So we are very appreciative of the fact that this is a 
broad, bipartisan demonstration of support for this initiative. 

We do urge the Subcommittee to approve S. 2042 and to report it 
favorably to the full Committee and subsequently for full Senate 
action, Mr. Chairman. 

We would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much, Mr. Riggin. 

Mr. Magill. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. MAGILL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGIS- 
LATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE 
UNITED STATES 

Mr. Magiix. Thank you, sir. We too will keep well within your 
request for the time constraints. 

On behalf of the 2.9 million members of the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary, I wish to thank you for affording 
me this opportunity to present our views with respect to S. 2042, 



73 



the bill to authorize the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project to 
construct a statue at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 

The VFW numbers about 600,000 veterans among its member- 
ship, and we are long on record as supporting the placement of a 
monument to the women who served in Vietnam on the grounds of 
the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The VFW, along with 
all of the other major veterans organizations, numerous members 
of Congress, and the Secretary of the Interior, strongly supported 
last year's efforts to complete the Veterans Memorial by the place- 
ment of a statue depicting a woman Vietnam veteran. 

At this most reverent site, we believe that the statue should rep- 
resent and honor all the women who served in Vietnam. It is our 
view that the legislation under discussion this afternoon, S. 2042, 
promotes the completion of the national Vietnam Veterans Memo- 
rial by expressing the strong support of Congress to complete the 
Memorial with a statue of a woman veteran. 

It also provides for the approval process. And, as I have stated 
previously, this bill enjoys the support of the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Magill follows:] 



74 
•VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES 




OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 



STATEMENT OF 

JAMES N. MAGILL, DIRECTOR 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE 

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

WITH RESPECT TO 



VIETNAM WOMEN'S MEMORIAL 

WASHINGTON, D. C. February 23, 1988 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MHMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

On behalf of the 2.'i million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of 
the United States and Its Ladles Auxiliary, I wish to thank you for affording 
me this opportunity to present our views with respect to S. 20A2, a bill to 
authorize the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, Inc. to construct a statue at 
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial In honor and recognition of the women of the 
United States who served In the Vietnam war. The VFW numbers about 600,000 
Vietnam veterans among Its membership, and we are long on record as supporting 
the placement of a monument to the women trho served in Vietnam on the grounds 
of the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Thus, we are highly gratified to 
be called upon to take part in today's dialogue on completing the Vietnam 
Memorial with a statue of a woman Vietnam veteran. 



 WASHINGTON OFnCX * 
VFW MEMORIAL BUILDINC • ZOO MARYLAND AVENUE. N^ • WASHINGTON. D. C 20002 - 5799 • AREA CODE 20»MS-22S9 



75 



Page 2 



It Is the conviction of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that proper and 
appropriate recognition of the great service and sacrifice rendered on behalf 
of the nation by the 10,000 American women who served in Vietnam is long 
overdue. Despite the fact that these brave and selfless women voluntarily 
served in the Vietnam war, their contribution and sacrifice have yet to be 
fully acknowledged and properly commemorated by the nation. By and large, 
Americans do not appreciate that these women bore direct and immediate witness 
to the horrors of this war and that some even died as a consequence of their 
service. 

The Vietnam Memorial, here in Washington, D.C., is both the locus and 
emblem of national healing with respect to the Vietnam war. It is the place 
where America, in a sense, may at last heal the terrible psychic wounds 
suffered through Its Involvement in this conflict while, at the same time, 
acknowledging and thanking those who served and hazarded all to preserve 
America's unique vision of liberty for all men. The Vietnam War Memorial is 
Intended in spirit and by law to commemorate the men and women who served in 
Vietnam. But the goal of honoring all those who served has yet to be realized. 

The VFW along with all of the other major veterans' organizations, 
numerous members of Congress and Secretary of Interior, Donald Hodel , strongly 
supported last year's efforts to complete the Vietnam Memorial by the 
placement of a statue depicting a woman Vietnam veteran on the grounds of the 
National Vietnam Veterans Memorial. We believe that this statue should 
represent and honor all women who served in Vietnam. 

We, as well as numerous others, believe that it is most fitting and 
appropriate that a statue honoring and recognizing the women of the United 
States who served in the Vietnam war be constructed at the site of the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial to help complete the process of recognition and healing for 



76 



Page 3 



the men and the women of the United States Armed Forces who answered their 
country's call to duty In Vietnam. It Is our view that the legislation under 
discussion today, S. 2042, promotes the completion of the National Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial by expressing the strong and unified support of the Congress 
and. Indeed, the nation to complete the memorial with the statue of a woman 
veteran. It also provides a clear timetable for the approval process. 
Therefore, this bill enjoys the support of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

In conclusion, I reiterate that the placement of a statue representing 
and honoring the women who served In Vietnam on the grounds of the National 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial enjoys the support of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 
It is our belief that this would complete the memorial and that this statement 
of gratitude to both the men and women who served is long overdue. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes ray testimony and I will be happy to 
respond to any questions you may have. 



77 



Resolution No. 301 
RECOGNIZE THE WOMEN WHO SERVED IN THE VIETNAM WAR 

WHEREAS, this is the 12th Anniversary of the ending of the Vietnam War and 
the women who served in the Vietnam War have not been fully recognized for their 
duty and sacrifices ; and 

WHEREAS, these women in uniform in all branches of service who served in 
the Vietnam War, many serving in combat areas, dedicating their lives to help 
oar wounded and in many cases coming under direct fire and giving of their own 
lives or being wounded while trying to protect our wounded servicemen; and 

WHEREAS, the servicewomen of the Vietnam War served in many varying 
occupations , many brought comfort and care to those who were dying of their 
wounds; and 

WHEREAS, many of these women of the Vietnam War were decorated for their 
bravery and eight (8) servicewomen lost their lives while protecting and 
bringing medical care to our wounded; and 

WHEREAS, both the 86th and 87th National Conventions of the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars of the United States adopted resolutions supporting the Vietnam 
Women's Memorial Project; now, therefore 



Resolution No. 301 



78 



Resolution No. 301 - Page 2 - Continued 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the 88th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars of the United States, that we continue to support the Vietnam Women's 
Memorial Project as a national project, to honor all servicewomen who served 
during the Vietnam War, which will complete the National Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial in Washington, D.C.; and ' 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Department of Interior, the National 
Capitol Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, (or Congress, if 
necessary) , be encouraged to approve the needed land at the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial site in Washington, D.C., for the addition of a statue depicting a 
woman veteran. - . - 



Adopted by the 88th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of 
the United States held in New Orleans, Louisiana, August lA-21, 1987. 

Resolution No. 301 



79 



Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much, Mr. Magill. 
Mr. Schultz. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. SCHULTZ, ASSOCIATE NATIONAL 
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS 

Mr. Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On behalf of the more than 1.1 milUon members of the Disabled 
American Veterans, especially the more than 300,000 disabled 
during Vietnam, I wish to thank you for the expeditious scheduling 
of this hearing on S. 2042. 

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, this measure was introduced as 
a result of the Fine Arts Commission's denial to place the statue of 
a Vietnam womeui at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial site here in 
Washington, D.C., and the DAV shares with the authors of this leg- 
islation our disappointment with that decision. 

Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the fine tradition of women who 
served our nation during wartime, thousands of American women 
volunteered for military duty in Vietnam, eight names of whom 
appear on the wall at the Memorial here in Washington. 

The military duties of these women were many and varied. How- 
ever, most served in the medical corps. 

The membership of the DAV at our most recent national conven- 
tion approved the resolution in support of placing appropriate rec- 
ognition in the form of a statue at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
site. 

Mr. Chairman, as a personal note, I would like to add that, as a 
disabled Vietnam veteran myself, I can say that had it not been for 
the thousands of women who had volunteered their services during 
Vietnam, especially those in the medical corps, there would be ob- 
viously more names on the wall at the Memorial here, and possibly 
my own. And I feel very strongly that the statue should be placed 
there. 

And the membership of the DAV believes that S. 2042 is a fair 
and equitable approach to achieving this legislative goal. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schultz follows:] 



80 



STATEMENT OF 

RICHARD F. SCHULTZ 

ASSOCIATE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR 

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS 

BEFORE THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS 
NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 
OF THE 
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND "NATURAL RESOURCES 
FEBRUARY 23, 1988 



MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

On behalf of the more than 1.1 million members of the 
Disabled American Veterans and its Ladies' Auxiliary, I wish to 
thank you for the expeditious scheduling of this hearing on 
S. 2042 — a measure authorizing the construction of a statue of 
a woman Vietnam veterim at the site of the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, as you may know, the DAV was formed by a 
group of service-connected disabled World War I veterans. The 
membership ranks of the DAV are composed entirely of wartime 
service-connected disabled veterems (men 2md women) who were 
wounded, injured or otherwise disabled in service to our country. 

S. 2042 

Introduced on February 4, 1988, by Senators Durenberger and 
Cranston with 41 of their colleagues as original cosponsors, 
this measure authorizes the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, 
Inc., to construct a statue at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, 
Wasliington, D.C, in honor and recognition of the women of the 
United States who served in the Vietnam Conflict. 

This legislation authorizes and directs the Secretary of 
the Interior, in consultation with the Vietnam Women's Memorial 
Project, Inc. and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc., and 
with the approval of the Commission of Fine Arts and the 
Hatlonal Capital Planning Commission, to select a suitable site 



81 



fbr the s-tatue of a womui Vietnam veteran on the- 2.2 acres of 
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial site. 

The design and plana for this statue are to be subject to 
the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, the Commission of 
?ine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission, all of 
whom must complete action on the plans and design within 90 days 
after they are received. 

The legislation also directs the Secretaries of the 
Commissions Involved, to give weighty consideration to the 
strong sense of the Congress that a statue of a woman Vietnam 
veteran should be constructed on the site of the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial, thus completing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
authorized by Public Law 96-297. 

S. 2042 further stipulates that neither the United States 
or the District of Columbia shall bear any expense for the 
construction of this statue. 



Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, S. 2042 was Introduced as a 
result of the decision of the Fine Arts Commission denying the 
request of the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, Inc. to 
construct a statue of a womiui Vietnam veteran on the grounds of 
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The DAV shares with the authors 
of this legislation and its many cosponsors disappointment with 
the Fine Arts Commission's rejection of this worthy project. 

Our nation's history is replete with accounts of women 
serving America during time of war. Historically, however, 
women veterans have not received just recognition for their 
wartime sacrifices. 

Since the eaurly beginnings of our nation, women have served 
during armed conflict with dignity and honor. However, it was 
not until after World War II that women were fully accepted as 
members of our Armed Forces. 



82 



In keeping with the finest tradition of women serving our 
nation during time of war, thousands of American women 
volunteered for military duty in Vietnam -- eight names of whom 
appear on the wall at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Washington, 
D.C. 

The military duties of the brave women, who volunteered to 
serve in one our nation's most controversial wars, were many and 
varied. Some women Vietnam veterans served in administrative 
roles supporting our fighting men in the field, however, most 
served in the medical corps providing critically needed care for 
wounded and dying combatants . 

Mr. Chairman, as previously mentioned, the DAV's membership 
ranks are comprised of more than one million men and women who 
became disabled in service to America. These men and women, at 
our most recent annual National Convention, aware of the lack of 
recognition given the military service of women Vietncun veterans, 
unanimously approved a resolution supporting appropriate 
recognition of the military service performed by women during 
Vietnam. Therefore, the DAV supports S. 2042, as we believe it 
represents a fair and reasonable approach to achieving this 
worthy goal. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, your support 
of S. 2042 will demonstrate, in a most meaningful way, your 
commitment to assuring that our nation's women Vietneun veterans 
finally realize the degree of recognition they truly deserve, 
while at the same time maintaining the intregrity of the 
approval process whereby such memorials are judged. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, I will be 
pleased to answer any questions you may have. 



83 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much. 
Ms. Stout. 

STATEMENT OF MARY R. STOUT, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 
VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, INC. 

Ms. Stout. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to repre- 
sent the membership of Vietnam Veterans of America on this im- 
portant issue to honor the women who served during the Vietnam 
War. 

Vietnam Veterans of America first became involved with this 
project in the summer of 1984, and it had the unanimous endorse- 
ment of our national board of directors at our convention in 1985. 
A resolution to call for the placement of a statue of a woman at the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial was unanimously voted upon by all of 
the delegates to our convention, and in 1987 that commitment was 
reaffirmed at our national convention. 

The person most responsible, I think, for our involvement and 
understanding of the importance of this project, the person who 
has been the liaison to all of the veterans organizations here today, 
is Diane Evans. With your permission, sir, because we have all 
taken a very small amount of time, I would like to give Diane the 
opportunity to complete the statement for Vietnam Veterans of 
America, because her views are our views. Is that acceptable to 
you, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Bumpers. For how long a time are we talking? 

Ms. Stout. A very short statement. 

Senator Bumpers. Sure. 

[Applause.] 

Senator Bumpers. You ought to run for something. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE EVANS, ON BEHALF OF THE VIETNAM 
VETERANS OF AMERICA, INC. 

Ms. Evans. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my statement is very 
brief. 

Our statue is for America, not for a special interest group, sub- 
group, or gender or profession, but for America, symbolizing the 
women who gave our country national security by giving it life, 
hope, compassion, and courage. Because of her love and concern for 
the soldier, let us give our statue to the American citizens asking 
and waiting for it, for healing, for history, and for honor. 

Eleanor Roosevelt said: "We must do the thing we are afraid to 
do if we believe it is right." In Vietnam, we did what we were 
afraid to do. Now we are not afraid to do the right thing by fight- 
ing until the statue representing the women who served during the 
Vietnam War stands beside our soul mates, our brothers who 
served. 

Mr. Chairman, the question must be answered: Who decides \yho 
America will remember? If it is the American people who decide, 
then we are truly a democratic nation. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stout follows:] 



84 




Vietnam Veterans ot America, tnc 

2001 SSt. NV>f 

Suite WO 

Wastiington. DC 20009- 1 125 

(202) 332-2700 



STATEMENTT OF 
IHE VIETOIAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, INC. 

Presented by 



MARY R. STDOT 
NATIONAL PRESIDENT 



Before the 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 
SUBCJOmiTTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 

on 

LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH A MONUMENT 

00(»1EMORATING FEMALE VIETNAM VETERANS 

AT THE SITE OF THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL 



FEBRUARY 23, 1988 



 A nol-tor-pfolM nalional veterans service organization  



85 



Mr. Qiairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Vietnam Veterans of 
America appreciate this opportunity to present its views on the matter of 
honoring the women who served in the Armed Forces during the Vietnam war by 
erecting a statue of a fen\ale Vietnam veteran on the grounds of the Vietnan 
Veterans Memorial (WM). The Vietnam Women's Memorial Project (VWMP) has 
served sucessfully as the lightning rod in garnering broad based public 
support for the female veteran statue as a way of educating the public to 
the contributions and sacrifices of female veterans as well as for the 
purpose of catpleting the Vietnam Memorial itself. 

As you know, this project has earned the support of all the major 
veterans organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc., the 
Secretary of Interior and the general public at large. With all of this 
support it came as a great disappointment when, on October 22, 1987, the 
Fine Arts Canmission voted the projects proposal down. 

We are aware of the reasons given by the Fine Arts Commission in 
handing down its decision, however, we disagree with those reasons. This is 
most especially true of the prospective view of the Fine Arts Ccnmission 
that this particular statue proposal might be just one in a long line of 
future proposals for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It is our view, in this 
connection, that no other additions to the Manorial are either desirable or 
appropriate . 

In the original law allowing the creation of the Memorial, P.L. 96-297, 
it was intended that the men and wonen who served in the Vietnam war be 
honored and recognized. V*iile it is argued by seme that the "Wall" itself 



86 



already honors the women veterans v*io served in Vietnam, we contend that 
clear recognition, both physically and symbolically remains to be accomp- 
lished. 

This sentiment was made abundantly clear by the emotional applause of 
the delegates to our 1985 Convention upon enacting the attached resolution 
sujporting the statue proposal of the Vietnam Vtomen's Memorial Project. The 
Convention floor speeches by Vietnam combat veterans in support of the reso- 
lution at the time it was adopted were replete with poignant references to 
the contributions of wonen in Vietnam who made the most cruel conditions 
bearable. 

As the camittee knows, the legislation introduced on Febraury 4, 
S.2042, by Senator Daniel Durenberger, Alan Cranston and many others re- 
presents the culmination of an agreement reached late last year in efforts 
to resolve the obstacles to a canmemorative female veteran statue at the 
Memorial created by the Fine Arts Commission's decision. While we supported 
legislation, S.1896, offered by Senator Durenberger last year in the inter- 
est of solving the problem by over-riding the Fine Arts Commission, we have 
now decided to accede to the Wtmen's Memorial Project leadership in support- 
ing this year's legislation as an appropriate ccrpranise. Vfe are satisfied 
that the currently pending bill delicately balances the concerns of all 
interested parties by respecting the process for determining the siting and 
appropriatness of all future national commemorative memorials in Washington, 
D.C. 

As such, under the new legislation, the Fine Arts Camiission would 



87 



be given aun capportunity tx> again review the proposed wonan veteran statue. 
Similarly those among the public who both oppose and support the proposal 
would be given an additional opportunity to convince the Fine Arts Ccmnis- 
sion on the merits of the proposal. 

Itiportantly, resolution of the issue would be put on an expidited 
timetable with a firm deadline in place by which time a decision must be 
made. Absent a decision within 90 days, ajproval would be deemed to have 
been given. 

As we have said earlier in this statement, it is our firm belief that 
no additions should be made to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial apart from the 
proposed statue. The legislation provides for an expression of the sense of 
Congress that no other addition be made. We would prefer, however, to see 
this particular provision given the binding force of law. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement. 



88 



The Vietnam Nbnen's Nenorifd Project 

"WHEREAS, the Vietnam Veterans of Anerica recognizes the vital role of 
women who served their country during the Vietnam war; and, 

WHEREAS, Vietnam Veterans of Anerica is an organization composed of 
women and men who served their country during the Vietnam war; and, 

WHEREAS, Vietnam Veterans of America is proud of the contributions and 
sacrifices its women members have made, and are continuing to make, for the 
betterment of Vietnam veterans, 

WHEREAS, Vietnam Veterans of Anerica realizes the Vietnam Wanen's 
Memorial Project statue is symbolic of the services and performance of all 
wanen who served their country during the Vietnam war, 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Vietnam Veterans of Anerica endorses 
the Vietnam Wbmen's Memorial Project as a way to honor all wanen who served 
during the Vietnam war; and, 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Congress be encouraged to appropriate the 
needed land at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial site in Washington, D.C., by 
working through the Department of the Interior, the Fine Arts Ccrriission, 
the Nationed Bark Service, the Department of t4ational Mennorials, and other 
necessary agencies; and, 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Vietnam Wbmen's Memorial Project 
symbolic statue to be erected at an appropriate site which will enhance the 
solemn nature of the Memorial." 



89 

Senator Bumpers. I sure want you on my side, Diane. 
Ms. Boulay. 

STATEMENT OF DONNA-MARIE BOULAY, CHAIRMAN, VIETNAM 
WOMEN'S MEMORIAL PROJECT 

Ms. Boulay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As Chairman of the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project, I prom- 
ise to be brief, too. But I would like to leave some information in 
the record about the project, our education, and our research goals. 

And I want to thank you very much for holding these hearings 
so early in 1988. I appreciate your decision and your staffs efforts. 

And on behalf of the many men and women who wanted to testi- 
fy before you today, I want to share with you why it is right and 
fair that our country should have a statue of a woman at the Viet- 
nam Veterans Memorial in our nation's capital. 

As you can see on the display before you, we have listed 27 orga- 
nizations representing millions of Americans who feel that women 
who served in Vietnam, who are Vietnam veterans, deserve a 
statue at the Vietnam Memorial. 

I would like to introduce into the record samples of letters of 
support and resolutions. I certainly do not want to read them for 
you. 

I also have with me the names of the women veterans who are 
part of the project. I am certainly not going to read those. 

Mr. Chairman, people who serve in wars have unique experi- 
ences. War was never meant to be. War makes death. Day after 
day, even hour after hour, we lived and worked amidst the wound- 
ed, the dead, and the dying. 

I arrived in Vietnam at the end of February 1967. A few days 
later I was assigned to triage for the first time. The medevac heli- 
copters brought twelve soldiers into our emergency room. Ten were 
already dead. Two were bleeding to death. 

Mr. Chairman, our daily duty was to care for the badly wounded, 
the young men whose legs had been blown off, whose arms had 
been traumatically amputated, whose bodies and faces had been 
burned beyond recognition. 

We eased the agony of a young marine, his legs amputated, his 
wounds dangerously infected. We worked hard to stop the bleeding 
of a sailor who had been shot in his liver. He died three days after, 
in immense pain. 

We cared for a young Army lieutenant from New York named 
Pat who had been admitted with a badly mangled leg and later 
evacuated to Japan, like many of the other seriously wounded sol- 
diers we treated. I do not know whether Pat's leg was saved. I hope 
so. Pat was a good soldier. 

Mr. Chairman, "Pat" is not short for "Patrick." Pat is a nurse. 
Patty was a nurse. She was stationed at the 24th Evacuation Hos- 
pital in Long Binh. 

We were the first American women sent to live and work in the 
midst of guerrilla warfare. The month-long Tet offensive was espe- 
cially frightening. The Viet Cong blew up the ammunition dump 
down the street, causing a wall in our unit to collapse on some pa- 
tients. 



90 



VC snipers shot at us. The North Vietnamese Army artillery 
roared throughout the nights. Those of us not at work huddled in 
our bunkers, wondering if we would survive until dawn. 

At work, listening to the thundering sounds around us, we tried 
to keep our hands from shaking, the fear out of our voices and off 
of our faces, so that the wounded would not see or hear it. 

Women served in Vietnam in many capacities. We served as per- 
sonnel specialists, journalists, clerk-typists, intelligence officers, 
and nurses. There was no such thing as a generic woman soldier, 
as there was no such thing as a generic male soldier. Men served 
as mechanics, engineers, pilots, divers, and infantrymen. 

The design of the men's statue at the Veterans Memorial was se- 
lected, according to Frederick Hart, the sculptor, because they 
"depict the bonds of men at war and because the infantry bore the 
greatest burden." 

Mr. Chairman, we are proposing that the design for the women's 
statue be that of a nurse who served in Vietnam. The statue of a 
nurse is so compatible with the existing trio of figures because the 
nurses' experience so closely parallels the experience of the infan- 
trymen — the intensity, the trauma, the carnage of war. 

The statue design which we are proposing is an easily recogniz- 
able symbol of healing and hope, consistent with the spirit and the 
experience of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Boulay follows:] 



91 



TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO THE U.S. SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC 

LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 

FEBRUARY 23, 1988 

BY DONNA-MARIE BOULAY 

511 ELEVENTH AVE. S. 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 

RE; S.2042 



GOOD AFTERNOON MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS DONNA-MARIE BOULAY. I'M 
CHAIRMAN OF THE VIETNAM WOMEN'S MEMORIAL PROJECT. I WANT TO 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING SO EARLY IN 1988. 
AND ON BEHALF OF MANY WOMEN AND MEN WHO WANTED TO TESTIFY BEFORE 
YOU TODAY, I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU WHY IT IS RIGHT AND FAIR THAT 
OUR COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE A STATUE OF A WOMAN AT THE VIETNAM 
VETERANS MEMORIAL IN OUR NATION'S CAPITOL. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE 
DISPLAY BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE LISTED ORGANIZATIONS, 
REPRESENTING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, WHO FEEL THAT A WOMAN'S 
STATUE IS APPROPRIATE AT THE VIETNAM MEMORIAL. 

MR. CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE WHO SERVE IN WARS HAVE UNIQUE EXPERIENCES. 
WAR WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE. WAR MAKES DEATH. DAY AFTER DAY, EVEN 
HOUR AFTER HOUR, WE LIVED AND WORKED AMIDST THE WOUNDED, THE 
DYING AND THE DEAD. 

I ARRIVED IN VIETNAM AT THE END OF FEBRUARY, 1967. A FEW DAYS 

LATER I WAS ASSIGNED TO TRIAGE FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE MEDEVAC 

HELICOPTERS BROUGHT 12 SOLDIERS INTO OUR EMERGENCY ROOM. 10 WERE 
ALREADY DEAD. 2 WERE BLEEDING TO DEATH. 

MR. CHAIRMAN, OUR DAILY DUTY WAS TO CARE FOR THE BADLY WOUNDED: 
THE YOUNG MEN WHOSE LEGS HAD BEEN BLOWN OFF, WHOSE ARMS HAD BEEN 
TRAUMATICALLY AMPUTATED, WHOSE BODIES AND FACES HAD BEEN BURNED 
BEYOND RECOGNITION. 

WE CARED FOR A LITTLE BOY ABOUT 2 YEARS OLD. SOME G.I'S HAD 
FOUND HIM ON THE ROAD SIDE BLEEDING FROM A WOUND IN HIS ABDOMEN. 
WE NEVER KNEW WHO HE WAS, WHO HIS FAMILY WAS. HE DIED 
ANONYMOUSLY, NO NAME FOR HIS GRAVE. 

WE EASED THE AGONY OF A YOUNG MARINE, HIS LEGS AMPUTATED, HIS 
WOUNDS DANGEROUSLY INFECTED. 

WE WORKED HARD TO STOP THE BLEEDING OF A SAILOR WHO HAD BEEN SHOT 
IN HIS LIVER. HE DIED THREE DAYS AFTER IMMENSE PAIN. 

WE CARED FOR A YOUNG ARMY LIEUTENANT FROM NEW YORK, NAMED PAT, 
WHO HAD BEEN ADMITTED WITH A BADLY MANGLED LEG AND LATER 
EVACUATED TO JAPAN LIKE MANY OF THE OTHER SERIOUSLY WOUNDED 
SOLDIERS WE TREATED. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER PAT'S LEG WAS SAVED. I 
HOPE SO. PAT WAS A GOOD SOLDIER. MR. CHAIRMAN, PAT ISN'T SHORT 



92 



FOR PATRICK. PATTI WAS A NURSE. SHE WAS STATIONED AT THE 24TH 
EVACUATION HOSPITAL IN LONG BINH. 

WE WERE THE FIRST AMERICAN WOMEN SENT TO LIVE AND WORK IN THE 
MIDST OF GUERILLA WARFARE. THE MONTH LONG TET OFFENSIVE WAS 
ESPECIALLY FRIGHTENING. THE VIET CONG BLEW UP THE AMMUNITON DUMP 
DOWN THE STREET, CAUSING A WALL IN OUR UNIT TO COLLAPSE ON SOME 
PATIENTS. VC SNIPERS SHOT AT SOLDIERS IN CHOW LINES ACROSS THE 
STREET. THE NORTH VIETNAMESE ARMY ARTILLERY ROARED THROUGHOUT 
THE NIGHTS. THOSE OF US NOT AT WORK HUDDLED IN OUR BUNKERS, 
WONDERING IF WE'D SURVIVE UNTIL DAWN. AT WORK, LISTENING TO THE 
THUNDERING SOUNDS AROUND US, WE TRIED TO KEEP OUR HANDS FROM 
SHAKING, THE FEAR OUT OF OUR VOICES AND OFF OUR FACES SO THE 
WOUNDED WOULDN'T SEE OR HEAR OUR FEAR. 

WOMEN SERVED IN VIETNAM IN MANY CAPACITIES. WE SERVED AS 
PERSONNEL SPECIALISTS, JOURNALISTS, CLERK TYPISTS, INTELLIGENCE 
OFFICERS. AND NURSES. THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS A GENERIC 
WOMAN SOLDIER, AS THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS A GENERIC MALE 
SOLDIER. MEN SERVED AS MECHANICS, ENGINEERS, PILOTS, DIVERS. AND 
INFANTRYMEN. THE DESIGN OF THE MEN'S STATUE AT THE VIETNAM 
MEMORIAL WAS SELECTED ACCORDING TO FREDRICK HART, THE SCULPTOR, 
BECAUSE THEY " DEPICT THE BONDS OF MEN AT WAR" AND BECAUSE "THE 
INFANTRY BORE THE GREATEST BURDEN". MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE 
PROPOSING THAT THE DESIGN FOR THE WOMAN'S STATUE BE THAT OF A 
NURSE WHO SERVED IN VIETNAM. THE STATUE OF A NURSE IS SO 
COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING TRIO OF FIGURES BECAUSE THE NURSES' 
EXPERIENCE SO CLOSELY PARALLELS THE EXPERIENCE OF THE 
INFANTRYMEN: THE INTENSITY, THE TRAUMA, THE CARNAGE OF WAR. 



93 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you, Ms. Boulay. 
Ms. Jamison. 

STATEMENT OF EVANGELINE JAMISON, LTC (U.S. ARMY, RE- 
TIRED), MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, VIETNAM WOMEN'S 
MEMORIAL PROJECT 

Ms. Jamison. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Evan- 
gehne Jamison, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army Retired, 
and a member of the Board of Directors of the Vietnam Women's 
Memorial Project. 

I live in northern California and I am happy to tell you that I 
come here with the support of every friend I ever had, with a refer- 
endum from our board of supervisors in my county, the State As- 
sembly. And the night before I departed, the City of Concord sent 
by a letter to you, which I would like to have 

Senator Bumpers. Everybody in Arkansas lives in Concord, Cali- 
fornia now. 

Ms. Jamison. Well, I will have them help me with the project. 

I should tell you that while growing up in Iowa I knew very little 
about the United States Army, until after December 7th, 1941. I 
had never heard of the Army Nurse Corps. But at that time, it 
seemed that every patriotic soul who was physically able was vol- 
unteering to serve this country. 

And I was one of those who signed to serve, having no idea what 
would follow. The next 26 years of my life were devoted to care of 
the serviceman and his family. After completion of basic training 
in your state. Fort Joseph T. Robinson, Arkansas, I served in Aus- 
tralia, New Guinea, and the Philippine Islands. 

I was in Fort Monroe, Virginia, during the early days of the 
Korean War, when the young fathers, fathers of young families, 
were called upon to leave for Korea on sometimes as little as 24 
hours notice. My shelters were used many times by the sobbing 
young pregnant wives, and I saw that it was part of my duty to 
comfort and encourage them to be brave for the sake of their hus- 
bands and their families. 

They represented a cross-section of America and they were won- 
derful. I shall always love them. 

Later on I served in Germany during the very tense time of the 
Berlin crisis, only to return home to be assigned to Fort Polk, Lou- 
isiana, during the Cuban crisis. The reason for this assignment was 
because Fort Polk was the closest Army hospital to Cuba, in the 
event that situation had blown up to become more serious. 

Did all of this prepare me for Vietnam? I thought so, so I accept- 
ed the orders and departed from Travis Air Force Base, California, 
for Vietnam in November of 1966. But I now think there is no way 
to prepare people for daily terror. 

Many of you witnessed the Vietnam War each day on television, 
but you were able to turn it off by the flick of a switch. We did not 
have that prerogative. The war went on day after day after day. 

I recall arriving at Ton Son Nhut Air Base about 2:00 a.m., to 
the sight of flares and the sound of artillery fire. It was still very 
hot and sticky at that early hour, and the air was filled with the 
worst stench I have ever smelled in my life. 



5A-92A - 88 



94 



I was taken to a billet where I saw Vietnamese people sleeping 
curled up on the floor at the entrance of the building. 

Later that day, I was driven by jeep out to the 93rd Evacuation 
Hospital in Long Binh, where I was assigned as a chief nurse. The 
hospital supported the First Infantry Division, the Big Red One, 
the 101st Airborne, the 199th Light Infantry Brigade, and the 9th 
Infantry Division down in the Mekong Delta. 

I could never describe to you the horror that we witnessed each 
day when helicopters arrived bearing the broken and maimed 
bodies of our young and heroic men. It was not unusual for us to 
receive large numbers of patients less than an hour after they had 
taken fire — received their injuries, for those who do not understand 
me. 

At no time do I recall having to send for extra help, as the staff 
just seemed to muster every time they knew of an influx of pa- 
tients. No one could have asked for a more supportive staff. 

Although more than 20 years have passed, I shall never forget 
taking my replacement. Colonel Mary McHugh, for an orientation 
tour of the hospital on the day of her arrival. As we approached 
the triage area, I could hear the sound of an approaching helicop- 
ter. 

I remember saying to Mary: Now I can show you how we care for 
new casualties. We waited for the chopper to land, only to find that 
the cargo was body bags. In each of those bags was the body of a 
husband, father, son or brother. 

So why do we need to complete the Vietnam Veterans Memorial? 
We need it for the women who were there and still cannot forget 
that year of their lives, in which each day seemed like a week. 

We need it for the men, the Vietnam veteran who tell us con- 
stantly how much it meant to arrive at a hospital and see an 
American woman there to care for them. 

We need it for the wives, mothers and children who lost a loved 
one, to remind them that someone was there who cared and in 
some cases was the last one to comfort and try to help those men 
we all dearly loved. 

We need it for visitors to the Memorial, who may know very 
little about the Vietnam era of our history. It was a period shared 
by men and women who gave of themselves in full measure. 

The veterans of this unpopular war were not treated very well 
by many of the citizenry upon their return. As a volunteer each 
week at the Concord, California, Vet Center, I meet those who are 
still trying to adjust to the emotional trauma they suffered. 

The statue that we hope to place at the Vietnam Veterans Me- 
morial will take up perhaps two square feet of the existing 2.2 
acres, which has already been allocated. It is difficult for me, a vet- 
eran of three wars, to understand how anyone could think that this 
is too much to ask of the country for which we proudly serve. 

Please treat us better than some of the citizenry did upon our 
return from Vietnam by allowing us to place our statue at the Me- 
morial, where she rightly belongs. 

And I thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jamison follows:] 



95 



TESTir^ONY SUBMITTED TO U.S. SENATE 

SUB COr^MITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, 

F-EBRUARY 23, 1988. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman" 

My name is Evangeline Jamison LTC/USA/Ret. and a member of the 

Board of Directors of the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project. 

I should tell you that while growing up in Iowa I did not think 
of or know very much about the United States Army and before 
December 1, 1941 had never heard of the Army Nurse Corps. After 
tht date every patriotic soul who was physically able seemed to 
be volunceering to serve this country and I was one of those who 
signed to serve, having no idea what would follow. The next twenty 
six years of my life were dedicated to the service of the military 
man and his family. After completion of basic training at Camp 
Joseph T. Robinson, Arkansas, I served in Australia, New Guinea, 
and the Philippine Islands. I was at Ft. Monroe, Virginia during 
the early days of the Korean War when the fathers of young families 
were called upon to leave for Korea on sometimes as little as 
24 hours notice. My shoulders were used many times by the sobbing 
young, pregnant wives and I saw i t as part of my duty to comfort 
and encourage them to be brave for the sake of their men and child- 
ren. I have always and will always love those families. They repre- 
sented a cross section of America and they were wonderful. Later 
on, I served in Germany during the very tense time of the Berlin 
crisis only to return to Ft. Polk, Louisiana during the Cuban 
crisis. That assignment was due to the fact that Ft. Polk would 

have been the closest Army hospital if the situation in Cuba had 
blown up into something more serious. 



96 



- 2 - 

Did all of this prepare me for Vietnam? I thought that it should 
and accepted the orders to depart from Travis Air Force Base, 
California, for Vietnam in November 1966. But I now think that 
there is no way to prepare people to endure daily terror. Many 
of you witnessed the Vietnam war each day on television but you 
were able to turn it off by the flick of a switch. We did not 
have that prerogative. The war went on day after day after day. 

1 recall arriving at Ton Son Nhut Air, Force Base in Saigon about 

2 AN to the sight of flares and the sound of artillery fire. It 
was still very hot and sticky at that early hour and the air was 
filled with the worst stench that I've ever smelled in my life. 

I was taken to a billet where I saw Vietnamese people curled up 
asleep on the floor at the entrance of the building. Later that 
day I was driven by Jeep out to the 93rd. Evacuation Hospital 
in Long Binh where I was assigned as the Chief Nurse. The hospital 
supported the 1st. Infantry Division (the Big Red One), the 101st. 
Airborne, the 199th. Light Infantry Brigade and the 9th. Infantry 
Division down in the delta, if my memory serves me correctly. 

I could never describe the horror that we witnessed each day when 
helicopters arrived bearing the broken and maimed bodies of our 
very young and heroic men. It was not unusual for us to receive 
large numbers of patients less than an hour after they had taken 
fire (received their injuries). At no time do I recall having 
to call in extra help, as the staff just seemed to muster when 
an influx of patients arrived. No one could have asked or wished 
for a more supportive staff. 



97 



- 3 - 
Although more than twenty years have passed, I shall never forget 
taking my replacement. Col. Mary McHugh, who incidentally was 
a dear friend, for an orientation tour of the hospital on the 
day of her arrival. As we approached the triage area, I could 
hear the sound of an approaching helicopter and remember saying 
to Mary, "now I can show you how we care for new casualties". 
We waited for the chopper to land only to find that the cargo 
was body bags. In each of those bags was the body of a husband, 
father, son or brother. 

So, why do we need to complete the Vietnam Veterans Memorial? 
We need it for the women who were there and still cannot forget 
that year of their lives in which each day seemed like a week. 
We need it for the men, the Vietnam Veterans, who tell us constant- 
ly how much it meant to arrive at a hospital and see an American 
woman there to care for them. We need it for the wives, mothers 
and children who lost a loved one, to remind them that someone 
was there who cared and in some cases were the last ones to comfort 
and try to help those men we all loved so dearly. We need it for 
visitors to the Memorial who may know very little about the Vietnam 
era of our history. It was a period shared by men and women who 
gave of themselves in full measure. 

The veterans of this unpopular war were not treated very well 
by many of the citizenry upon their return. As a volunteer each 
week at the Concord, California Vet Center, I meet those who are 
still trying to adjust to the emotional trauma they suffered. 



98 



- 4 - 

The statue that we hope to place at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
will take up perhaps two square feet on the existing 2.2 acres 
which has been allocated. It is difficult for me, a veteran of 
three wars, to understand how anyone could think that this is 
too much for us to ask of the country for which we proudly served. 
Please treat us better than some of the citizenry did upon our 
return from Vietnam by allowing us to place our statue at the 
Memorial where she so rightfully belopgs. Thank you. 



99 
Senator Bumpers. Karen. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN K. JOHNSON, LITTLE ROCK, AR 

Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, my name is Karen Johnson. I am 
from Little Rock, Arkansas, where 80,000 Vietnam veterans live 
and work every day, where the state council of the Vietnam Veter- 
ans of America has 

Senator Bumpers. Pull that microphone up, will you, please? 

Ms. Johnson. Where the state council of the Vietnam Veterans 
of America have voiced their total support for this project, and 
where an insult against any veteran is an insult against all veter- 
ans. 

I was born in Petersburg, Virginia. My father was in the mili- 
tary. He was killed in France on November the 11th, 1944. 

I was raised in Oklahoma. I graduated from college in 1964 and 
explored the military as a career and joined the Army in 1965. 

My family was very patriotic because of the trials and tribula- 
tions that we had to go through because of being raised without a 
father. Considering that everyone in my family had experienced all 
that patriotism, when I said that I was going to join the Army it 
was not a new thought, even though I was the first woman to have 
joined. 

My family felt that all Americans owed their country any sacri- 
fice needed for the national good, regardless of their race or sex, 
that patriotism should be a blind emotion, and it should be accept- 
ed by our country without any thought or qualm as to who offered 
such patriotism. 

Consequently, after I served in Germany from 1966 to 1968, when 
my country asked me to go overseas again to Vietnam, I went. I 
served in Vietnam from July of 1970 to March of 1972, for a total 
of 20 months in country. 

When I tell people these facts, they always ask me, was I a 
nurse, that I did not see any combat, and that I must have volun- 
teered. When I tell them that I was awarded a Bronze Star, they 
ask me what for. 

For 18 years I have answered these questions with several long- 
winded explanations which were really an apology for my Vietnam 
service, because I was not a nurse and I was not a combat soldier, 
and there were many others who had served who the public much 
better understood their service in their traditional roles. 

I have kept silent on what I did in Vietnam because it was easier 
than making the apologies or trying to educate my listener. I know 
now that I have done many Vietnam veterans a great disservice by 
my silence. Thanks to the support of the Arkansas Vietnam Veter- 
ans, my husband and my grandchildren, I have made my last apol- 
ogy, felt my last twinge of embarrassment, and I will not remain 
silent to the detriment of my comrades in arms. 

I am a veterans' veteran and I am proud of it. I was not a nurse. 
I saw very little full-fledged combat, and when my country called I 
went willingly. I see no disgrace in answering such a call or in vol- 
unteering to serve in the United States Army. 

I served as the Command Information Officer of the United 
States Army, Vietnam Headquarters, located at Long Binh. Howev- 



100 

er, my job entailed finding out what Army troops were doing, pho- 
tographing those troops, writing news reports, and printing the in- 
ternal publications to keep the troops informed. 

I could not do that from Long Binh. I traveled all over Vietnam. 
Wherever there were Army troops, I went, too. I have flown in 
attack helicopters, been shot at in jeeps, and I went over the Hay 
Van Pass in several convoys. 

Whatever it took to get the news out to the troops is what I and 
my staff did, and we did it very well. "Uptight Magazine," one of 
our publications, was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Award for the 
outstanding military publication in its field, an award that was 
given to me by "Time Magazine." 

Our office published a twice-daily news bulletin, a weekly Long 
Binh paper, the weekly "Army Reporter," "Uptight Magazine 
Quarterly"; and "Tour 364," the history of the war, was updated 
every six months so that troops rotating home had a written histo- 
ry of their service. We were also responsible for the free distribu- 
tion of "Stars and Stripes" to ensure that every U.S. military per- 
sonnel serving in Vietnam had daily access to a newspaper. 

There were a lot of obstacles to resolve to make all of this 
happen. My staff made it happen every day for 20 months, in 12 
hour shifts, seven days a week, including Christmas, when we 
worked harder because we were responsible for making Operation 
Jingle Bells work so that the troops could see Bob Hope. 

I am here today to tell you that I am very proud of that staff, 
and especially of Spec. 5 Steven Henry Warner, who gave his life 
so the American soldier could be the best informed and most moti- 
vated soldier in the world. I do not believe they would want me to 
apologize for our service or the fact that Steve Warner gave his life 
as a journalist and not as a combat soldier. 

If there is any apology owed, it is the one I owe my staff for not 
standing up for them for the last 18 years because I did not like 
the questions my admission to being a Vietnam veteran elicited be- 
cause I was a woman, something not well understood by the Ameri- 
can public. 

Their service and mine should be given equal recognition with 
all who served, not diminished because of the non-traditional posi- 
tion I held. 

I come before you today to ask you to legislate equal dignity for 
the women who served their country by answering the call to arms. 
The Vietnam Women's Memorial would do much to give women 
veterans a new sense of self-respect and it will make a strong 
public statement that bias, prejudice, or ignorance of the sacrifices 
that women veterans have made for their country will no longer be 
tolerated. 

Today the flag that covered my father's casket when he was put 
to final rest in 1948 lies in front of me, because I have always 
wanted him to be proud of me, his only child. And I believe he 
would be proudest of me today when I say, after 18 long years of 
silence: I was an American soldier; I answered my country's call to 
arms; and I am an American veteran, a title I should be able to 
share with equal dignity with all who have served before me and 
will serve after me. 



101 

No more apologies, Mr. Chairman. I am a Vietnam veteran. I am 
proud of it. 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much, Karen. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 



102 



TESTIMO^fY SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 

ON FEBRUARY 23, 1988 

BY KAREN K. JOHNSON 

515 S. /fOGts STREET 

LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 

My name is Karen K. Johnson and I'm from Little Rock, AR, a state where 
over 80,000 Vietnam Veterans live and work and where the state council of the 
Vietnam Veterans of America has voted their support of the Vietnam Women's 
Memorial and who considers an insult against any veteran to be an insult 
against all veterans. 

In explanation of my support of the Vietnam Women's Memorial, I was born 
August 5, 1943, at Petersburg, VA, where my father was stationed at Ft. Lee as 
an infantry weapons instructor until shortly before my birth when he was 
transferred to Cape Girodeau, MO, to enter pilot training. My mother and I 
then returned to her home in Oklahoma when I was two weeks old. Subsequently, 
my father was sent overseas where he was killed in action on November 11, 19A4, 
near Metz, France, while serving with General Patton's Third Army. 

I grew up in Guthrie and Midwest City, OK, in a family that deeply honored 
my father's sacrifice for his country and instilled the same values of duty, 
honor and country in me. After graduation from Oklahoma State University in 
1964, I explored the military as a career and joined in February, 1965. 

Considering that everyone in my family was deeply patriotic, it was not at 
all odd to them that I chose to enter the Army, even though I was the first 
woman in my family to do so. My family felt all Americans owed their country 
any sacrifice needed for the national good regardless of their race or sex as 
patriotism should be a blind emotion that all Americans can respond to with 
full acceptance by their country. 



103 



- 2 - 

Consequently, after serving in Germany from 1966 - 1968, when my country 
asked me to again go overseas and serve in Vietnam in July, 1970, I went. I 
served in Vietnam from July, 1970, to March, 1972, for a total of 20 months 
in-country. When I tell people these facts they always seem to ask: (1) "You 
must have been a nurse"; (2) "You couldn't have seen any combat"; (3) "You must 
have volunteered". When I tell them I was awarded a bronze star, they always 
ask what for. For 18 years I have always answered those questions with 
long-winded explanations which were really apologies for my Vietnam service 
because I wasn't a nurse or a combat soldier and there were many others who 
served and who the public much better understood their service in the 
traditional roles. I have kept silent on what I did in Vietnam because it was 
easier than making apologies or trying to educate the listener. I know now 
that I have done many Vietnam Veterans a great disservice by my silence. 
Thanks to the support of the Arkansas Vietnam Veterans, my husband and my 
grandchildren, I have made my last apology, felt my last twinge of 
embarrassment and will not remain silent to the detriment of my comrades in 
arms. 1 am a Vietnam Veteran and I am proud of it. I have nothing to 
apologize for concerning my Vietnam service. No, I was not a nurse, yes, 1 saw 
very little full-fledged combat and, yes, when my country called I went 
willingly. I see no disgrace in answering such a call or in volunteering to 
serve in the U. S. Army. 

I served as the Command Information Officer of the United States Army, 
Vietnam Headquarters, located at Long Binh. However, my job entailed finding 
out what Army troops were doing, photographing the troops, writing new reports 
and printing the internal publications to keep the troops informed. I could 
not do that from Long Binh. I travelled all over Vietnam wherever there were 
Army troops I went too. 1 have flown in attack helicopters, been shot at in 
jeeps and gone over the Hai Van Pass in convoys. 



104 



-3 



Whatever it took to get he news out to the troops is what may staff and, I did, and 
we did it well. Uptight Magazine, one of our publications, received the Thomas Jefferson 
Award for the outstanding nhilitVy publication in its field ~ an award made possible by. 
Time Magazine . Our office published a twice-daily news bulletin, a weekly Long Binh 
newspaper, the weekly Army Reporter, Uptight Magazine Quarterly, and Tour 363, the 
history of the war, was updated every six months so that troops rotating home had a 
written history of their service. We were also responsible for the free distribution of 
Stars <5c Stripes to isure that every U.S. mililtary person serving in Vietnam had daily 
access to a newspaper. There were a lot of obstacles and transportation problems to 
resolve to make all this happen, and my staff made it happen every day for 20 months, 
working 12 hour shifts, seven days a week, including Christmas, when we worked harder 
because we were responsible for making Operation Jingle Bells work so the troops could 
see Bob Hope. 

I am here today to tell you how proud I am to have served with so many brave, 
hard working soldiers in Vietnam. Many have gone on to prominent positions since we 
returned home. Sp. 4 Peter Moulton is now editor of a Trenton, New Jersey newspaper. 
Sp.4 Steve Grain is a published artist. But all of us who served together will always 
remember Sp. 5 Stephen Henry Warner, who gave his life so the American soldier could 
be the best informed and motivated soldier in the world. I don't believe any who served 
with me would want me to apologize for our service or that Steve Warner gave his life as 
an Army journalist, not a combat soldier. 



105 



- 4 - 
If they could be here today I am sure they would tell you that the- USARV 
CIO was one of the finest in the world, one that all Americans could have taken 

pride in. Because our staff really cared and went beyond the call of duty even 

\\veS 
to the point of giving our o e lvoc if necessary, I was awarded a Bronze Star. 

If there is any apology owed , it is the one I owe my staff for not 
standing up for them for the last 18 years because I didn't like the questions 
my admission to being a Vietnam Veteran elicited because I was a 
woman — something not well understood by the American public. Their service and 
mine should be given equal recognition wich all who served and not downplayed 
because of the non- traditional position I held. 

Part of the American creed is that all men are created equal , endowed by 
their creator with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, we all know all too well that not all 
men are born equal, some were born lame, some were born deaf, some blind, some 
mentally handicapped, some into abject poverty, and some unwanted. This great 
body has done much to legislate eqality where it could be legislated. You 
cannot legislate sight, hearing or missing limbs but you can legislate dignity 
for all by condemning bias and prejudice wherever it exists and you have done 
that on many previous occasions. Because of your brave actions, whole classes 
of citizens have a new sense of self-respect. 

I come before you today to ask you to legislate equal dignity for the 
women who served their country by answering the call to arms. The Vietnam 
Women's Memorial will do much to give women veterans a new sense of 
self-respect and it will make a strong public statement that bias, prejudice or 
ignorance of the sacrifices women veterans have made for their country will no 
longer be tolerated. 



106 



- 5 - 

My family made the ultimate sacrifice when my father gave his life for his 
country in WW II and my cousin, Jimmy King, gave his life in Vietnam. We are 
all very proud of them. I want my family to be proud of me too for I served 
with equal commitment. Had it been necessary to give my life, I would have 
done so. For some reason God chose to spare me but I do not believe that makes 
my service any less honorable. I have never really told my family what I did 
in Vietnam because I didn't think it was worthy of coninent. 

Today the flag that covered my father's casket when he was put to final 
rest in 1948 lies in front of me because I always wanted him to be proud of 
me — his only child — and I believe he would be proudest of me today when I 
finally say, after 18 long years of silence, I was an American soldier, I 
answered my country's call to arms, and I am an American Veteran — a title I 
should share with equal dignity with all who have served before me and will 
serve after me. No more apologies — I am a Vietnam Veteran and proud of it. 

I ask your help in obtaining equal dignity by passing S.B. 20A2. 



107 

Senator Bumpers. Ms. Boulay, do you have any feelings about 
where the statue ought to be located at the Memorial? 

Ms. Boulay. Yes, we do, sir. We discussed this with William 
Penn Mott and he suggested and we concurred and we presented to 
the Fine Arts Commission a suggestion that at the eastern tip of 
the wall, in a similar spot where the men are at the western end of 
the wall. 

There is a diagram that we have available in the project materi- 
al that we submitted for the record. 

Senator Bumpers. How were these eight women who died killed, 
do you know? 

Ms. Boulay. If my memory serves me correct, two went down, 
were shot down in a helicopter; and two were crashed in a medevac 
plane; one died of — I think she had a stroke. A third — I am sorry, I 
am losing it. 

I do not know the sixth or the seventh. I do know Sharon Lane 
was on duty, also a nurse, when shrapnel in her hospital — she took 
some shrapnel in her carotid artery and died instantly. 

Senator Bumpers. Did 8,000 women who served or 10,000 — which 
is the correct figure? I hear two different figures? 

Ms. Boulay. Yes. We do not know the correct figure, and we are 
in the process of determining what that precise figure is. We do 
know, for example, the marines kept very accurate records about 
the women who were there. They sent 36 women. 

We do know that the WACS sent 636. We have 

Senator Bumpers. 636 WACS? 

Ms. Boulay. Yes, such as Ms. Johnson. 

Senator Bumpers. Do you have any idea what the mix was be- 
tween military and civilian among the women? 

Ms. Boulay. We do know that, in addition to approximately 
10,000 or 11,000 military women, there were more than 13,000 Red 
Cross women. Almost all or virtually exclusively all of the Red 
Cross personnel in Vietnam were women, recruited especially for 
that. 

We do know that there were several women in the Department 
of Defense; 26 foreign service officers lost their lives. They had 
served in the embassy, they were being evacuated at the end of 
1975, and their aircraft went down. 

And there were many women in the United States Agency for 
International Development who were there to teach the Vietnam- 
ese certain updated nursing techniques, to care for Vietnamese sol- 
diers. 

And we know that there were two CIA agents who were women. 
And that is the best our research has come up with. 

Senator Bumpers. I would just as soon you had not mentioned 
that. 

Let me ask you, Mrs. Jamison, if you had had your choice early 
on, would you rather a woman had been part of the original 
statue? 

Ms. Jamison. I think if Mr. Hart had put a woman in with the 
original statue, there would have been no discussion about it. But 
for historically, you know, for three wars what has anyone ever 
said? Nothing. 



108 

It is time. It is past time. It is right. And that is a beautiful 
statue, and it looks like all of us looked there. 

Senator Bumpers. Do any of you have any idea how many corre- 
spondents from the media died in Vietnam, newspaper, television 
reporters? 

Ms. BouLAY. We do know there was a woman photojournalist 
who stepped on a land mine. We do know that one of Karen John- 
son's troops, a journalist, was killed, and I know that there was at 
least one male correspondent who also died. 

Senator Bumpers. Well, I thank you all very much. Your testi- 
mony has been extremely good, very cogent, and we appreciate 
your taking the time to prepare it, and some of you have come long 
distances to be with us. Tell all those Arkansans in Concord hello 
for me, Ms. Jamison. 

Our next panel is Mr. Robert W. Doubek, Maya Lin, who is the 
original designer of the Vietnam Memorial, Colonel Mary Evelyn 
Bane, Diane Stoy, Donald Kilgus and Shelley Mastran. 

You know, I was just thinking, while you are being seated, I do 
not think I have ever seen a memorial to a Confederate soldier 
here in this city. 

Mr. Doubek. You have to go to Alexandria, Virginia, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

Senator Bumpers. You have to cross over into Virginia, huh? 

Well, I may introduce one of my own bills here before long be- 
cause, you know, we are the only part of this country that has ever 
served as an occupied nation. 

Talk about healing the wounds of the nation, that was a time 
when — no, I am not going to do that, but I was just thinking about 
it. 

With your permission, I will take you the way your names are 
listed in order on my list. 

The first one is Mr. Doubek. 

Is that a correct pronunciation? 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. DOUBEK, FORMER EXECUTIVE DI- 
RECTOR AND PROJECT DIRECTOR, VIETNAM VETERANS MEMO- 
RIAL FUND, INC. 

Mr. Doubek. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert W. Doubek of Washington, 
D.C. I am a Vietnam veteran. I am employed in the private sector. 
I was a founder of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. I served 
as its Executive Director and Project Director. I was responsible for 
building the memorial. I did the work. In recognition of my 
achievement, I was nominated for a Congressional Gold Medal 
which was a bill passed by the Senate on November 14, 1985. 

The fact is that women are not represented by the Vietnam Vet- 
erans Memorial. The fact is also that the memorial does not repre- 
sent anyone. It is not a legislative body. It is a symbol of honor, 
and as such, it is complete as a tribute to all who served their 
country in the Vietnam War. 

It is a basic rule of common sense that mandates that something 
which is not broken should not be fixed. The genius of the wall is 
its equalizing and unifying effect. All veterans are honored, regard- 



109 

less of rank, service branch, commission, sex, or any other catego- 
ry. The names of the eight women casualties take their rightful 
places of honor. To ensure that this fact is never overlooked, the 
inscription on the first panel of the wall states that the memorial 
is in honor of the men and women of the Armed Forces. The 
reason I know this is because I was instrumental in drafting the 
inscription. 

In 1982, politics required that we add a figurative sculpture as a 
more specific symbol of the Vietnam veteran. Even with the heroic 
and dangerous service rendered by other combatants such as Air 
Force and Navy pilots, Navy swiftboat crews, and the life saving 
efforts of nurses, helicopter pilots and medics, there was only one 
possible choice of what category would be literally depicted to sym- 
bolize the Vietnam veteran, and that could only be the enlisted in- 
fantrymen, grunts. They account for the majority of names on the 
wall; they bore the brunt of the battle. The fact is all grunts were 
men. 

The addition of a statue of a woman or of any other category, for 
that matter, would reduce the symbolism of the existing sculpture 
from honoring or symbolizing the Vietnam veterans community as 
a whole to symbolizing only enlisted infantrymen. This in turn 
would open a Pandora's box of proliferating statuary toward the 
goal of trying to depict every possible category. The National Park 
Service has already received requests for a statue to literally depict 
Native Americans and even for scout dogs, and in fact, I want to 
say that the figure for Native American casualties was 225. 

The addition of a statue solely on the basis of gender raises trou- 
bling questions about proportion. Is gender of such overriding im- 
portance among veterans that we should have a specific statue to 
women who suffered eight casualties, and none for the Navy which 
suffered over 2,500, nor for the Air Force which suffered over 
2,400? Is gender of such importance to outweigh that some 90 per- 
cent of the women who served in Vietnam in the military were of- 
ficers, while over 87 percent of all casualties were enlisted? 

Approval of S. 2042 would set 

Senator Bumpers. Wait, say that again. 

Ninety percent of the women who served there were officers? 

Mr. DouBEK. I am told that, the statistics I have read is that 
8,500 of the women in Vietnam were nurses, who were commis- 
sioned officers. 

Senator Bumpers. The statement here in your statement is 90 
percent of the women who served were officers, and 87 percent of 
all the casualties were enlisted? You are talking about in the male 
population? 

Mr. DouBEK. Well, of the entire population, were enlisted. 

Senator Bumpers. Were enlisted? 

Mr. DouBEK. Yes. 

Senator Bumpers. All right. 

Mr. DouBEK. Approval of S. 2042 would set the precedent that 
strict literal depiction of both genders is an absolute requirement 
of all military related memorials. What about the new Navy memo- 
rial? Will Congress mandate an additional figure at the Iwo Jima 
Memorial? 



no 

In November 1986 Congress authorized the establishment of a 
memorial to honor all women who have served in the Armed 
Forces of the United States. The symbolism and importance of this 
long overdue tribute, especially to the many women who served in 
World War II and Korea would be seriously compromised by the 
passage of this legislation. Fundraising for the inclusive memorial 
cannot even begin until the question of the Vietnam women's 
statue is resolved. 

In establishing the memorial, there were two federal agencies 
that played a particularly noble role, the Fine Arts Commission 
and the Planning Commission. When Interior Secretary Watt 
issued the ultimatum by which the statue was added, the Commis- 
sions could have taken the safe course of mollifying their natural 
constituencies by disapproving the statue, but both protected the 
interests of the American people, realizing that if they did that, the 
entire memorial would be finished. 

And they recently protected the interests of the American people 
as a whole recently by going on record against the addition of the 
women's statue. 

I would like to say that several veteran organizations have come 
in here expressing their support for this legislation. I recently in- 
quired as to the deliberative processes that they undertook to 
arrive at their positions on this proposals, and I note that none of 
the organizations has been able to provide any documentation that 
the interests of the American people as a whole, or of the memorial 
as an entity were even considered when they adopted these resolu- 
tions. 

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is one of the few bright lega- 
cies of this country's difficult experience in the Vietnam War. It is 
complete, it is whole, it is not a legislative body, nor is it a piece of 
legislation subject to amendment for political ends. Like an inno- 
cent child, it offers hope and promise. Let's protect it, not abuse it. 

I ask you to reject this legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doubek follows:] 



Ill 



TESTIMONY OF 

ROBERT W. DOUBEK, FORMERLY 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND PROJECT DIRECTOR, 

VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL FUND, INC. 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 

U.S. SENATE 
IN OPPOSITION TO S. 2042 

FEBRUARY 23, 1988 

My name is Robert W. Doubek of Washington, D.C. I am a Vietnam 
veteran and am employed in the private sector. This statement is 
submitted in opposition to S. 2042, a bill to authorize the 
construction of a statue of a woman at the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial . 

I was a founder of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc., and 
served as its executive director and project director. As such, 
I was directly responsible for the entire process of legislation, 
design. Federal approval and construction of the national memor- 
ial. In recognition of my achievement of building the memorial, 
I, along with Jan Scruggs and John Wheeler, was nominated for a 
special Congressional Gold Medal by Senate Bill S. 865, which was 
passed unanimously by the Senate on November 14, 1985. 

The legislation before you, S. 2042, is a bad idea for many 
reasons. By this bill the Congress would make the judgments that 
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as it presently stands is 
"incomplete" but for the addition of a statue to literally depict 
women, and that no other special group may be similarly singled 
out for literal recognition. These judgments not only are based 
upon faulty reasoning, but are not for the Congress to make. 

We have heard statements that women are not "represented" by the 
memorial as it now stands. The fact, however, is that the 
memorial does not represent anyone. It is not a legislative 
body. It is a symbol - a symbol of the honor that our nation 
accords to those who served in its Armed Forces in the Vietnam 
War. As such, it is complete as a tribute to all who served. In 
the five years since its dedication, the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial has become the most visited national shrine in 
Washington, an overwhelming acclamation of its appropriateness by 
the American people. A basic rule of common sense mandates that 
something that isn't broken shouldn't be fixed. 

One of the keys to the genius of the abstract design of the 
"Wall" is its equalizing and unifying effect: all veterans are 
honored, regardless of rank, service branch, military occupa- 
tion, race, creed, sex, or any other category. The names of the 
eight women casualties take their rightful places of honor in the 
long list. To ensure that this fact is never overlooked by any 
■/isitor, the inscription at the top of the first panel on the 



112 



wall is specifically drafted to state that the memorial is "In 
honor of the men and women of the Armed Forces who served in the 
Vietnam War". 

Despite the advantages of the orginal design, politics required 
that we add a piece of figurative sculpture as a more specific 
symbol of the Vietnam veteran. Even with knowledge of the heroic 
and dangerous service rendered by other combatants such as Air 
Force and Navy pilots. Army helicopter pilots, and Navy swiftboat 
crews, and of the life saving efforts of nurses, helicopter 
pilots and medics, there was only one possible choice of what 
category would be literally depicted to symbolize the Vietnam 
veteran. That group could be only the enlisted infantrymen, the 
"grunts". The grunts account for the vast majority of names on 
the wall, and bore the brunt of the combat effort, which all 
other categories supported. The fact is: all grunts were men. 

Simplicity, eloquence and poignance are the essence of the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and the challenge of integrating the 
flag staff and the politically mandated sculpture with the wall 
was a major one. Under the guidance of the Commission of Fine 
Arts, however, our architects developed an episodic scheme for 
the three elements by which the visitor is led in turn from the 
flag staff to the sculpture and then to the wall. Each element 
retains its own dignity, with the abstract symbol of the wall and 
realistic symbol of the sculpture in a dynamic tension. 

The addition of a statue of a woman, or of any other specific 
category for that matter, would destroy the symbolism and 
aesthetics of the memorial. There would be a whole new focus to 
compete with the subtle arrangement of the existing elements. 
The existing sculpture would be reduced from a symbol of the 
entire Vietnam veteran population to one for enlisted infantry 
alone. This in turn would open a Pandora's box of competing and 
proliferating statuary to the emphemeral goal of literally 
depicting every possible subcategory. The National Park Service 
has already received demands for a statue for Native Americans 
and even for Scout Dogs. 

The addition of a statue of a woman solely on the basis of gender 
raises troubling questions of proportion and of precedent. Is 
gender of such overriding importance among veterans that a 
specific statue to women, who suffered eight casualties, should 
be built with none for the Navy, which had over 2500, nor for the 
Air Force, which had over 2400? Is gender of such importance as 
to outweigh the fact that some 90% of the women who served in 
Vietnam were officers, while over 87% of all casualties were 
enlisted men? Congressional approval of S. 2042 wouldset the 
policy and precedent that strict literal depiction of both 
genders is an absolute requirement of all military related 
memorials. Will this policy apply to the new Navy Memorial? 
Will Congress mandate an additional figure at the Iwo Jima 
Memorial? 



113 



I realize that by virtue of having served typically in support 
roles women generally have not been depicted in military 
monuments. Fortunately, this lack was addressed by Congress in 
November 1986 by Public Law 99-610, which authorizes the 
establishment of a memorial on Federal land to honor all women 
who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States. I 
wholeheartedly applaud this legislation, and have already 
volunteered my services to The Women in Military Service for 
America Memorial Foundation (WMSAMF), which will establish the 
memorial. I note, however, that the symbolism and importance of 
this long overdue tribute, especially to the many women who 
served in World War II and Korea, would be seriously compromised 
by the passage of S. 2042. In fact, the WMSAMF has 
determined that it can not even commence its fund raising 
campaign until the question of the Vietnam women statue is 
resolved. The WMSAMF remains ready, however, to welcome the 
participation of the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project in the 
memorial to all women veterans. 

Although it has been only six years since ground was broken for 
the Vietnam Veteran Memorial, I often am dismayed by the seeming 
lack of memory of the extraordinary struggle which we faced to 
reach that point. See Attachment . I am similarly dismayed by 
the seeming ignorance of the noble role played by two Federal 
agencies, the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital 
Planning Commission, in that project. Both commissions had 
already approved the final design when then Interior Secretary 
James Watt issued the ultimatum by which the statue would be 
added. The commissions might have taken the safe course of 
mollifying their own natural constituencies by disapproving the 
statue, but both realized that to do so would mean the death of 
this sorely needed memorial. Both the CFA and the NCPC again 
protected the interests of the American people when they 
recently went on record in opposition to the proposal to add the 
women statue. These agencies rather than the Congress should 
make the judgment of the "completeness" and appropriateness of 
our national memorials, and they have done so. 

Regarding the apparent support of several major veterans 
organizations for S. 2042, I recently inquired as to the 
deliberative processes that they undertook to arrive at their 
positions on this proposal, and I note that none of the 
organizations has been able to provide any documentation that the 
interests of the American people as a whole or of the memorial as 
an entity were considered. Did any of these organizations give 
any thought to the precedent that they were setting? 

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is the one of the few bright 
legacies of our country's difficult experience in the Vietnam 
War. It is complete; and it is whole. It is not a legislative 
body; nor is it a piece of legislation subject to amendment for 
political ends. Like an innocent child, it offers hope and 
promise. Let's protect it, not abuse it. For these reasons, I 
ask you to reject S. 2042. 



114 






The Story of the 
\letiiam Veterans Memorial 



An insider tells the sometimes-troubled history — 

through its pre-construction days until the glorious national tribute 

one year ago this month. 

By Robert W. Doubek 



NO DOUBT like most 
Vietnam velei^ns. I had 
been preoccupied after 
leaving the service with com- 
pleting my education and get- 
ting established in a career. I 
had had little time to look back 
but — probably like most — I re- 
tained a lingering sense of re- 
sentment that our service had 
gone unrecognized by our coun- 
try. 

While practicing law in 1978, 
I met Joe Zengerle, a West Point 
graduate. Vietnam veteran and 
early advocate for Vietnam vet- 
erans' causes. In April 1979, at 
Joe's invitation, I attended a 
meeting of an ad hoc committee 
formed to hold a local obser- 
vance of Vietnam Veterans 
Week (proclaimed by Congress 
for the week of Memorial Day, 
1979). There, a slender serious- 
looking man named Jan 
Scruggs proposed the idea of a 
memorial. The consensus at the 
meeting was negative ("We need bene- 
fits, not a memorial."). Later, I advised 
Jan that a non-profit, charitable corpo- 
ration was the necessary legal organi- 
zation lo undertake such a project. It 
could contract for design, construction 
and other services, and receive contri- 
butions; donors would gel tax deduc- 



I ttl\ • VA/ILLIMM I ,\;\UtK5UI\ |r • titKMAKU I 

DOLAN  DANIEL E FARAN • ROY A FRYMAN • 
' • WILLIAM D KAYGA • JOSEPH | ,V1lb\NO • Lf 
EZ NIETO jr • GARY A OHMAN • jOSE ANGEL 
3-BORCE.S • CHARLES H SCHAEFER • ROBERT 
RSO\ • BOBIiY LEE TARTER  RICHARD j VVHI 
COEKS • Tt-IOMAS I POSTAL • )AMES A FRAN 
 LmVARD R CKl.^CZNN^tl ' HERBERFC HE! 
\ T KI\.\RD • PAUL F Ki if^ ,' • MICHAEL I U 
GILL • D,\VID E NELSO.'\^ - |. ' ; D W PARM 
TA RVA\ • STLVt\ !>>/■ V.' '>' l.\' ) SCH 
.EY -ALyWRSlf-.y •;■->>, -  f'^ \I.LENJr 

-■ - --^ ■■'•■■ '-'-^ \; \ ;riCANr 



;Kl.KCZNN^tl' HERBERFC HE! 
'AULFKiif^ ,--MICH,-\EL|L/-' 
: NELSO.'\^- I 'iDAVPARM 
A'tNkV'f^,' '>'IN)SCH 



UG • \\']! ' 
CUESr- 
) K!\C 1', 
-PADI,\  
. • ,MAR<) 
•\.\1RY- 
LERt)V'' 



,\ R HF' 
-MUSKE 






lions. Ten days later Scruggs relaincd 
me to set up the corporation and asked 
me to be an incorporator. The memori- 
al, he explained, would be a symbol of 
overdue recognition by Americans to 
the service of Vietnam veterans. Fi- 
nanced by private coninbulions, it 
would be an expression of the people. 



not just the government. The 
memorial would make no polit- 
ical statement about the war. 
By transcending that issue, it 
could help reconcile the divi- 
sions in the country caused by 
the war. since both supporters 
and opponents would no doubt 
agree that Vietnam veterans 
had served honorably. 

Jan. from Bowie. Md.. en- 
listed in the Army right out of 
high school. He had served in 
Vietnam from 1969 to 1970 as a 
rifleman and had been deco- 
rated for valor Half the men in 
his company were killed or 
wounded, and he was wounded 
and hospitalized for two 
months. After Vietnam he 
earned college and graduate de- 
grees in psychological counsel- 
ing. In a study of the psychoso- 
cial readjustment of Vietnam 
veterans, he found that years la- 
ter many still had difficulties — 
primarily because they did not 
return to a supportive psychological 
atmosphere. In congressional testi- 
mony in 1976 he had recommended 
that the federal government establish 
not only counseling centers but a na- 
tional memorial — as a symbol to Viet- 
nam veterans that the country cared 
about them. The movie The Deerhunter 



THE RETIRED OFFICER • NOVEMBER 1983 



17 



115 



In late 1979, several members of Congress 
co-signed a resolution authorizing the use 
of two acres near the Lincoln Memorial as 
a site for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 
Four of the 1 pose with Jan Scruggs (right) 
during a press conference. (Lett to right) 
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Rep. John Paul 
Hammerschmldt (R-Arfc.) and Sen. Charies 
Mathlas (R-Md.). 



had now rekindled his idea for the me- 
morial. 

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
Fund, Inc., was incorporated on April 
27, 1979. Scruggs became president, 
and I b-icame secretary. In June the IRS 
granted tax-exempt status. We opened 
a post office box and arranged with a 
bank to open all our mail and deposit 
and record receipts of all contribu- 
tions. Jan drafted statements and 
asked senators and congressmen for 
support, taking two weeks off from his 
job without pay. He organized a press 
conference on Memorial Day to an- 
nounce the formation of the WMF, but 
by July 4 only $144.50 was received— 
as sardonically reported by Roger 
Mudd on the CBS evening news. 

Yet, the wire service story had a posi- 
tive effect. It publicized the Fund's ad- 
dress and attracted the notice of Jack 
Wheeler, a Washington lawyer. Viet- 
nam veteran and West Point graduate 
who had led the effort to establish a 
South East Asia memorial at West 
Point. At our first meeting I outlined 
the seemingly overwhelming number 
of tasks, decisions and problems. The 




initial, most critical was manpower. 
Wheeler recruited a group of profes- 
sional men, all Vietnam or Vietnam- 
era veterans, comprised of lawyers 
Sandy Mayo, John Morrison, Paul 
Haaga and Bill Marr, and certified 
public accountant Bob Frank, who 
agreed to become WMF treasurer. 

In August, Sen. Charles Mathias of 
Maryland agreed to introduce the leg- 
islation needed to authorize public 
land for the memorial. Frank and 
Wheeler became WMF directors, and 
in September we began regular meet- 
ings with the legal committee and 
other volunteer advisors, who included 
Vietnam veterans Bill Jayne and Art 
Mosley, and Heather Haaga. a tele- 
phone company executive with knowl- 
edge of fund raising. 

The legislation would be introduced 
on Nov. 8. 1979. Now for the basic is- 




sues: where and what should the me- 
morial be? Most important for its suc- 
cess was a prominent site. It should be 
a major memorial seen by all tour- 
ists — not just a marker or statue tucked 
away across the river. A site on the Mall, 
suggested by Senator Mathias, would 
be prominent but would require that 
the memorial's design respect the ex- 
isting environment. Happily, the re- 
quirement was compatible with our 
thinking. We believed that in character 
the memorial should be reflective and 
contemplative, evoking thoughts 
about the service, sacrifice and cour- 
age of the veterans, the missing and 
dead, rather than attention to U.S. pol- 
icy or the war itself. The design solu- 
tion used at West Point, where a park 
was developed on a quiet peninsula, 
seemed ideal, and we envisioned the 
memorial as an overall landscaped 
plan. Thus, we asked Mathias to spec- 
ify in the legislation a two-acre site in 
Constitution Gardens. Congressman 
John Paul Hammerschmidt agreed to 
introduce a companion bill in the 
House of Representatives. 

FUND-RAISING EFFORTS 

In September, a direct mail fund- 
raising firm proposed a 200,000-letter 
lest mailing, which, if successful, 
would be followed by a one million- 
letter appeal on Memorial Day 1980. 
The test required $20,000 for postage 
and fees, far in excess of our assets. Yet. 



>; Maya Ying Lin, a 21-year-old architecture 
i student at Yale University, won first place 
^ in the nationwide competition to design 
^ the Memorial. Here she displays her wln- 
1 ning entry at a May 1961 press conference 
£ with Jan Scruggs (left) and the authot 



18 



THE RETIRED OFFICER • NOVEMBER 



\ 

198B 



116 



in early October. Sen. John Warner of 
Virginia, who was Secretary of the 
Navy during the Vietnam War. person- 
ally committed to help raise the "seed 
money" required to launch the nation- 
al fund-raising campaign- 

With the introduction of the legisla- 
tion. WMF needed an organization 
and an office. We formed six volunteer 
groups (public relations, finance and 
accounting, fund raising, legislative. 
site selection, and design and construc- 
tion), and on Dec. 1, 1979. I became 
executive director— our first salaried 
position. On Jan. 2. 1980, I opened our 
office — barely large enough for a 
desk — on Connecticut Avenue. 



By the end of 1979. WMF had 
$9.000— $5,500 from individu- 
als in response to the July 4 
news story, $2,500 from the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars and a $1,000 personal 
gift from Senator Warner, who had 
held a fund-raising breakfast in late 
December. (According to Scruggs. 
TROA members were among the first 
Americans to respond to the national 
appeal for financial support.) In addi- 
tion, on Jan. 16, Grumman Aerospace 
Corporation, responding to Warners 
appeal, presented a $10,000 check, 
enough for the postage for the test 
mailing and the initial fees of the firm. 
We were off and running. In February, 
H. Ross Perot contributed an addition- 
al $10,000. Heather Haaga and our di- 
rect mail firm designed new letterhead 
and our flame logo. We recruited prom- 
inent Americans to lend their names as 
members of our national sponsoring 
committee. Bob Hope agreed to sign 
our appeal. By the end of February, the 
test mailing was a clear success; the 
Memorial Day appeal would be tar- 
geted to names on lists which tested 
best. 

Morrison guided our legislative 
effort. By mid-March, 85 of the 100 sen- 
ators were co-sponsors of our bill. With 
this number and our professional 
study of site alternatives, the National 
Park Service abandoned its opposition 
to the site-specific provisions in the 
bill. After hearings in the Senate, Viet- 
nam veteran RonGibbs coordinated ef- 
forts in the House. With Senate pas- 
sage on April 30, and House hearings 
on May 12, we were hopeful of final 



passage by Memorial Dav. to coincide 
with our direct mail appeal and our 
Memorial Day service al the site. Yet. ii 
congressman who misunderstood tiie 
nonpolitical nature of the memorial 
gutted our bill on the House floor, re- 
quiring a Senate/House conference tt) 
restore the site provisions and spoiling 
our schedule. 

Whatever our initial successes, it 
still took money to raise money. The 
one million-letter appeal required 



selecting a single artist or designer, 
conducting a "limited competition" or 
holding a competition open to all. We 
decided upon the latter We had al- 
ready heard from dozens of designers, 
and the significance of the proiect de- 
manded a design selection method 
which, consistent with our fund rais- 
ing, would offer all Americans the op- 
portunity to contribute. After inter- 
views in May and June we selected 
Washington architect Paul Spreiregen. 




$31,000 in advance for postage. Wash- 
ington's First American Bank, whose 
president Charles Daniel was a West 
Point graduate, provided an unsecured 
loan. In March 1980. we realized that 
our public relations needs required 
professional involvement and had in- 
vested our still-meager resources to re- 
tain a firm. The investment soon paid 
off when in late April syndicated col- 
umnist James J. Kilpatrick. who had 
never before endorsed a fund-raising 
drive, appealed to his readers. Thev ul- 
timately gave more than $60,000- We 
repayed the loan within weeks. 

SELECTING A DESIGN 

Mosley, a West Pomt graduate and 
real estate developer, and John Woods, 
a professional engineer who was dis 
abled in Vietnam, considered alierna 
tive methods of selecting a design lor 
the memorial: designing it ourselves. 



Numerous Vietnam veterans were invited 
to the March 26. 1982 groundbreaking cer- 
emony, including TROA's executive vice 
president, LGen Roy Manor, USAF-Ret 



an expert on the competition method, 
as our professional advisor. 

Our Memorial Day service received 
national media attention, and on July 
1, 1980. President Carter signed our 
legislation in a Rose Garden ceremony. 
The bill made the memorial's design 
subject to the approval of the Commis- 
sion of Fine Arts, the National Capital 
Planning Commission and the Secre- 
tary of the Interior. James Watt, and 
required that sufficient funds to com- 
plete it be raised before ground was 
broken. With our direct mail effort and 
Kilpatrick's appeal, we now had suffi- 
cient funds to hold the design competi- 
tion and undertake less expensive 
forms of fund raising. 



THE RETIRED OFFICER • NOVEMBER 1983 



19 



117 



One month lalcr I lound larger office 
space, and in September Kaihy Kielich 
joined mo on the staff as administia- 
livc manager. With the organi/alional 
guidance of Richard Radez — a West 
Point graduate and bank executive — 
we hired Sandie Fauriol in October to 
plan and conduct a fund-raising cam- 
paign that would target corporations, 
foundations, unions, veterans organi- 
zations and community groups, in ad- 
dition to the ongoing direct mail pro- 
gram. We set a $7 million fund-raising 
goal based upon our estimates of de- 
sign, construction, and admmistrative 
and fund-raising costs. To advise 
Fauriol, we retained Robert Semple. a 
consultant from New York. With Ray 
Grace, a Vietnam veteran who had 
raised the funds for the Lake Placid 
Olympics, as our contractor, we inten- 
sified our direct mail program. 

Throughout the summer, we devel- 
oped the rules, criteria and documents 
for the design competition. For the de- 
sign we specified that the memorial be 
reflective and contemplative, and har- 
monious with its site and environ- 
ment; contain inscriptions of the 
names of the 57,939 dead and missing; 
and make no political statement about 
the war. Our most difficult decision 
was the composition of the jury. Alter- 
natives included judging it ourselves 
and putting together a panel represen- 
tative of all affected by the war Ulti- 
mately we decided — as the jury's dis- 
cretion was limited by our criteria and 
we would interview all candidates — to 
constitute a jury of the most experi- 
enced, prestigious artists and design- 




ers we could find. It took a mature eve 
to envision — from two-dimensional 
renderings — how a design would look 
on the site. Prestige was important lo 
attract the best designers and to mini- 
mize second guessing bv the federal ap- 
proval bodies, which had tied up a me- 
morial to President Franklin D Roose- 
velt for more than 25 years. 



We began promoting the com- 
petition in October and sent 
out more than 5,000 copies of 
the rules booklet. By the Dec. 29 dead- 
line nearly 2.600 individuals and 
teams (3.800 individuals in all) had 
registered. By March 31. 1981, we re- 
ceived 1,421 entries, making our com- 
petition the largest ever held in the 
U.S. or Europe. The entries, if set up 
side by side in a single row. would have 
extended more than 1.3 miles. Joe 
Zengerte, who was now Assistant Sec 
retary of the Air Force for Installations. 
had arranged for the entries to be dis- 
played in a hangar at Andrews AFB. 
Md. 

In February 1981. Scruggs became a 
full-time staff member, and Col Don 
Schaet, USMC-Ret.. became executive 
vice president- As the new project di- 
rector, I focused on design and con- 
struction. In April, Karen Bigelow was 
hired as assistant campaign director 
We now had the full staff of eight, in- 
cluding two secretaries, who earned 
the project to completion. During this 
period Perot contributed $160,000, the 
estimated cost of the design competi- 
tion. Total contributions as of March 
31. 1981, exceeded $1.8 million. 

MAYA LIN WINS 

On May 1, 1981, the jury presented 
its report loourboard. staff and design 
advisors. All but one of us ser\ed in 
Vietnam, and we enthusiastically ac- 
cepted its recommendation to build 
the first prize-winning design of Mava 
Ying Lin. Announced at a press confer- 
ence on May 6. the design was national 
news. We were finally getting the atten- 
tion from the media that we had sought 
from, the beginning. Though the uncon- 
ventional design provoked some nega- 
tive comment, a consensus favoring its 
elegant simplicity emerged on the part 
of the architectural cntics. the staffs of 
the approval bodies and veterans orga- 



nizations The American Legion and 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars pub- 
licized the design and launched inter- 
nal fund-raising campaigns. 

In June 1981 the design concept was 
approved in open hearing by the Secre- 
tary of the Interior's National Capital 
Memorial Advisory Committee The 
Fine Arts and Planning Commissions 
followed suit at hearings in July and 
August. Though giving conceptual ap- 
proval, all three bodies saw questions 
of safety, handicapped access and 
drainage to be addressed in the design 
development process. In mid-August 
we retained the Cooper-Lecky Partner- 
ship, a Washington architectural firm, 
to assist Lin in developing her design 
into final plans. Gilbane Building 
Company, which had built the Air and 
Space Museum on the Mall, became 
our construction manager 

By late summer we had planned to 
break ground in March 1982 and dedi- 
cate the memorial on Veterans Day. The 
dedication would offer an opportunity 
for national recognition of Vietnam 
veterans. We began to think in terms of 
a major celebration, which might in- 
clude a parade. In May. immediately 
after the design was announced, radio 
station WPKX of Alexandria, Va.. held 
a radiothon which raised $250,000 in 
pledges during one weekend. Similar 
fund raisers followed in San Antonio 
and Little Rock. Staffers Fauriol and 
Bigelow loured the country visiting 
corporations and foundations. The 
fund-raising campaign hit full stride 
when Paul Thayer, chairmari of the LTV 
Corporation, agreed to be chairman of 
our Corporate Advisory Board. 

While our design team addressed is- 
sues such as safety, handicapped ac- 
cess, and size and layout of names. Wal- 
ter Marquardt — our Gilbane construc- 
tion executive — developed budgets 
and schedules and investigated sources 
for materials. The walls were length- 
ened to 250 feel to provide a gentle 
slope for wheelchairs and allow max- 
imum space for the names. A granite 
walkwav and safety curb were added. A 
storm sewer under Constitution Ave- 
nue solved the drainage problem. We 
found that black granite could be quar- 
ried lo produce slabs with a maximum 
width of 40 feet; the names were there- 
fore laid out five to a line, wiih the 
panels like pages in a book. Slone with 



20 



THE RETIRED OFFICER • NOVEMBER 1983 



118 




sufficienl density and depth u\ color 
unfortunately was available onlv Irom 
quarries in India and Sweden, In Sep- 
tember I arranged with the National 
Personnel Records Center in Si. Louis 
to retrieve the file of every man and 
woman on the casualty list and check 
the spelling of his or her name. 

INSCRIBING THE NAMES 

Our major problem was how to m- 
schbe the names. Hand carving would 
take all the worlds craftsmen three 
years and cost SIO million. Even the 
production of stencils for sandblasting 
would be a huge task. Yet. in August. 
almost as if by providence. I was called 
by Larry Century, a young inventor 
from Cleveland. Ohio. He had devised a 
process which he believed might be 
used to inscribe the names. It produced 
a stencil photographically, direcllv on 
the surface of the sione, Centurv soon 
submitted samples of granite with 
complex designs — which we had 
sent — blasted perfecllv. His process, 
though simple, was such a great ad- 
vance that wc specified its use when wc 
bid the inscription contract. Centurv 
became a consultant to Binswanger 
Glass Company of Memphis. Tcnn.. 
which won the contract and blasted all 
57,939 names ma three-month period. 

By the fall of 1981 , wc were well on 
schedule lor a March groundbreaking. 
Fund raismg was going well, and the 



developed design would be ready lor 
the November meeting of the Fine Arts 
Commission. Before quanving the 
stone, however, we needed to go belore 
Fine Arts inOctobcr for approval of the 
granite samples. This meeting was to 
become the opening battle of a minia- 
ture war called the "conlroversv" 

Tom Carhari, a Vietnam veteran and 
West Point classmate of Wheeler and 
Mosley. had moved to Washington in 
April 1980 and become an occasional 
WMF volunteer A contact of hi;, had 
led to the loan from First American 
Bank Later that fall, however. Carhuri 
had withdrawn as a volunteer to enter 
the design competition, and like 1 .402 
other entrants, had been unsuccesslul. 
Unhappv with the chosen design. Car- 
hart had little subsequent contact with 
WMF. Bui now, five months laler, he 
was to show up al the Fine Arts Com- 
mission wearing his purple hearts, and 
with reporters and television film 
crews, to denounce the design and de- 
mand its rejection. His characteriza- 
tion of the memorial as a "black gash of 
shame and sorrow" was publicized na- 
tionwide by the Associated Presb, 
which described him as a decorated 
veteran, but failed to mention that he 
was also a losing competitor 

The Fine Arts Commission alfirmed 
its prior approval, but others dis- 
gruntled with the design loined Car- 
hart, and a small but determmed eflort 



To accommodate concern that the Memori- 
al lacked specific symbols of veterans and 
patriotism, the WMF added a heroic sculp- 
ture designed by Frederick Hart (opposite 
page) and a flagstaff. Both are expected to 
be dedicated in May. 



to block its construction began. The 
group included staff members of con- 
sei-vative congressmen, key assistants 
of Interior Secretary Watt, author 
James Webb and Milton Copulos, of the 
Heriiage Foundation, a conservative 
think tank. It seemed as if fires were 
being ht everywhere, and the press, 
sensing blood, at times reported opin- 
ion and misinformation as fact. A docu- 
ment alleging that four or five of the 
jurors were anti-war activists and one 
a member of the American Communist 
Partv was circulated among consena- 
tive senators and key administration 
officials. 

Carhari gained access to the op-ed 
pages of The Washington Posi and A/cir 
York Ttnies to carry his crusade. While 
Kilpainck held firm in his support of 
the design and helped bring the Na- 
lional Review around, other publica- 
tions and columnists like SoWiero/ Fur- 
lutte. Pat Buchanan and Phvlis Shaflv 
denounced the design without ever 
talking with us. 

Our opponents failed to testifv at the 
hearings of the Fine Arts and Planning 
Commissions in November and De- 



THE RETIRED OFFICER • NOVEMBER 1983 



21 



119 




ccmbcrai which ihc dcvclupud design 
was approvcd- 

Jan. Don and I ran ourselves raeged 
answering hale mail, writing letters lo 
editors and briefing congressmen. 
Whenever we could gel a hearing, wc 
prevailed almost every time Bui we 
were consianily pul on the delensive — 
pointing out ihai black was a color ol 



dignilv and respect (ihe Marine Corps 
and Scabees' memorials were black), 
the 126 degree angle of the walls could 
not possible be a "peace sign" (no one 
could spread his fingers that wide), and 
the memorial would indeed contain an 
inscription. 

In November. Secrelarv Walt. ha\- 
iny heard the "communist" accusation. 



Thousands came to Washington In Novom- 
ber 1982 to view the completed Memorial 
and participate in a National Salute to Viet- 
nam Veterans parade (opposite page). 



requested explanation of our design se- 
lection method and the jury's delibera- 
tions. In earlv December. Webb re- 
signed from our National Sponsoring 
Committee, retained a lawyer and de- 
manded ihal his name be removed im- 
mediately from all WMF materials. 
He tried lo get Army Gen William 
Westmoreland to resign also, but ihc 
general, after hearing our briefing and 
seeing the slides of the memorial, af- 
firmed his conviction in ihc appropri- 
ateness of the design. 

On Dec. 7. the opponents held a press 
conference to demand that the walls be 
made white and raised "above ground" 
(forming a fence across the Mall), with 
a flagpole planted ai the vertex. Noone 
at WMF claimed lo be an an critic, 
but we knew at least from Ayn Rand's 
The Fotmiainhead that we had no mor- 
al — and perhaps even legal — right lo 
make such changes and that ihe design 
commissions would never approve 
them. Furthermore, if we lost the bat- 
tle to build the Lin design we would 
lose the memorial entirely. The strong 
consensus and momentum could never 
be regained as each new design pro- 
posal would be second guessed for dec- 
ades. We were eager, however, to pro- 
pose a flag for the site, and asked 
Senator Warner to mediate somehow 
with our opponents. They had mean- 
while enlisled the support of Perot, 
who was publicly ihrcaiening lo con- 
duct a Gallup Poll. 

The "controversy" had an unex- 
pected positive effect: our fund raising 
accelerated significantly. Further- 
more, we learned thai on Dec. 18. Sec- 
retary Wail told his staff thai he would 
not interfere unless he received evi- 
dence thai the allegations of commu- 
nist involvement and of overwhelming 
public opposition lo the design were 
true The next week, the VFW present- 
ed a check for $1 80.000, and ihe Ameri- 
can Legion was rapidly approaching 
its goal of $1 million. 

Yet. our optimism was short lived. 
During the Christmas 1981 recess. Con- 
gressman Henry Hyde, who claimed 
ne\er to have heard of the memorial 



22 



THE RETIRED OFFICER • NOVEMBER 1983 



^20 



bclorc. reaclcd to Webbs op-cd piece in 
tUc Wall SireetJuunial on Dec. 18 (Webb 
assei ted ihui the meinoi lal would be a 
"wailing wall") and Pal Buchanans al- 
lack in ihe Chicago Tnhunc on Dec. 26 
(raising ihe "communist" allegation). 
Without requesting the facts from us. 
Hyde fircdoff a "Dear Colleague" letter 
to all House Republicans asking that 
they write President Reagan to have 
the project blocked. Ironically. Hyde 
represented my home townof Berwyn. 
III., where the local American Legion 
post had just conducted a "walk-a- 
thon" to raise funds for the memorial. 
Events moved rapidly. In early Janu- 
ary, Secretary Watt informed us that he 
would personally review the project. 
We had heard that our opponents were 
basically concerned with adding a flag 
and having a stronger- worded inscrip- 
tion, which we were perfectly willing 
to do. We asked Warner to set up a 
meeting. Secretary Watt, meanwhile, 
made it clear that he would kill the 
project unless we accommodated the 
group of opponents. What was to have 
been a small meeting grew to fill a Sen- 
ate hearmg room as opponents came m 
from around the country and Perot 
sent an aide to Washington to spread 
the word. 

WORKING OUT A COMPROMISE 

We were outnumbered at least five to 
one. We explained the criteria, we ex- 
plained the design competition, we of- 
fered the flag, we offered the inscrip- 
tion, but the reaction was totally 
negative. After five hours of deadlock. 
Gen Michael Davison, former U.S. 
Army Commander in Europe and a 
strong supporterof the original design. 
proposed the addition ofa sculpture of 
a serviceman. 

We doubted that such an addition 
would be approved, but with Watt's ul- 
timatum, we had to yield somewhere. 
At the same time, the memorial's po- 
tential spoilers appeared to balk at the 
responsibility for killing the project. 
Almost by magic we had ihc key to 
unlocking the dilemma. WMF agreed 
to use our best efforts to add a flag and 
statue, and ihey agreed to cease their 
efforts to block construction of the Lin 
design. It was further agreed that we 
would reconvene in several weeks to 
discuss suitable sculptures. 

The idea thai a national memorial 




could be designed through backroom 
political tactics was grotesque, but 
Watt pronounced that he was satisfied 
with the compromise and inclined to 
approve construction. We made final 
arrangements, but just five days before 
wc were to break ground, Watt re- 
quested assurances from the commis- 
sions thai the additions would be ap- 
proved. 

Afierlhe initial shock of the meetmg, 
we realized that the important thing 
was to have a memorial, even if it were 
noi done exactly according to our 
plans. Furthermore, manv people 
whom we respected thought that a re- 
alistic sculpture might be a positi\e 
addition, and the site was large enough 
to blend the flag and statue harmo- 
niously with the walls FuriunaleU. 
both commissions had meetings sched- 
uled for earlv March, and both, awaie 
of our political problems, took the un- 
usual step of approving the sculptute 



in principle — in the absence of a specif- 
ic design. Fine Arts, however, added the 
caveat that the flag and statue would 
best be grouped to form an "entrance 
plaza" al the site. 

On March 11, Watt issued his ap- 
proval, with the condition that the me- 
morial could not be dedicated until ihe 
statue was in place. By coincidence ihe 
second meeting with the opponents 
was convened later that day. As at the 
first meeting, we were outnumbered, 
and ihe agenda — to consider designs 
for the sculpture — was changed. Thev 
now decided thai they would dictate 
the exact locations of the Hag and stat- 
ue — even though ihe staiue design had 
not been considered By a show of 
hands, thev voted to put the Hag al ihe 
vertex and the staiue in the angle, 
ihercbv making the walls a pedestal for 
liie flagpole and a backdrop for the 
bculpture. Despite this, the meeting 
had at least one positive result; thesug- 



THE RETIRED OFFICER • NOVEMBER 1983 



23 



121 



gcslion lo form a commiucL* lu work 
out ihc details of the addiiiuns 

Work began al the site on March 16. 
1982. with ihc foinial groundbrcakini; 
ceremony on March 26. Warren 
Creech. GHbane's construction manag- 
er, pulled out all slops to make up lor 
ihe lost time. Col Roberi A. Carter, a 
retired Air Force fighter pilot, became 
our new executive vice president on 
April 1. 1982. Having completed (he 
fund raising, Faunol and Bigelow be- 
gan planning the National Salute to 
Vietnam Veterans. 

In April we formed the Sculpture 
Panel — with Webb. Copulos, Mosley 
and Jayne — comprised equally of sup- 
porters and opponents of the Lin de- 
sign. The panel asked Rick Hart, the 
highest-ranking figurative sculptor in 
the design competition, to produce 
clay sketches. We agreed to consider a 
grouping of three soldiers, and on July 
1 we retained Hart to develop a presen- 
tation model. Progress on finding loca- 
tions for the flag and statue was not as 
easy, since Webb and Copulos insisted 
that "political" considerations gov- 
ern — regardless of aesthetics and the 
need for commission approval. Never- 
theless, our Board, as a gesture of good 
faith, determined to forward for ap- 



proval the panel's recummcndaiiuns 
wiilioui modification. 

Alter sonic tense weeks, in which 
pro|cct architect Cai'ta Corbin ironed 
out the final details of the inscription 
process, the lirst granite panel was un- 
veiled on the site on Julv 20. Wc were 
still on schedule for completing the 
walls m time for the National Salute in 
November 

NATIONAL SALUTE 

In September, the American Legion, 
VFW, DAV, AMVETS and Paralyzed 
Veterans, perceiving the enthusiasm 
for the Salute and alarmed at the lost 
opportunity, in concert petitioned Walt 
to allow thededicaiion. We were sched- 
uled to present the flag and statue pro- 
posal to Fine Arts in October, and al- 
though doubtful of their "political 
locations." we were confident that they 
would be approved. Arguing that our 
actions had demonstrated our good 
faith and that approval of the sculpture 
design was the higher hurdle, we pro- 
posed that Watt relax the condition for 
a dedication if the sculpture were ap- 
proved. We began organizing witness- 
es to testify for the statue, but at the 
same time were being hard pressed 
from the rear Maya Lin, upset with any 









Since dedication, more than 2 million vltltora — an average of 10,000 a day — have viewred 
the Memorial. The Department of Interior will handle grounds maintenance and upkeep 
beginning in May. 



additions to the site — regardless of lo- 
cation — had retained a prominent at- 
loincv to press hei" case 

The approval of the sculptuicon Oct. 
13 1982, and the memorial's dedica- 
tion on Nov. 13 should have been the 
end ol this stoi v- The opponents next. 
ho\\c\'er. began a campaign lo have 
Watt and Congress overrule the Fine 
Arts Commission. In the closing hours 
of the lame duck session in late Decem- 
ber. Congressmen Donald Bailey and 
Duncan Hunter actually arranged 
House passage of a bill to dictate the 
flag and statue locations. Only the for- 
titude and astuteness of Mathias pre- 
vented it from becoming law. In late 
January Watt publicly stated that the 
locations were political issues that 
would not be resolved for months. At 
that point, someone obviously decided 
that enough had been enough, and 
within two days the secretary signed 
off on our three alternate proposals. At 
their February and March meetings, 
the two commissions approved our 
"entry pla/a" proposal. The political 
battle over the memorial's design was 
at long last ended. 

During this past spring and summer, 
WMF completed the relocated side- 
walks and installed the flagstaff. With 
completion of the pla/.a and additional 
walks, and the installation of a lighting 
system and the statue likely by Memo- 
rial Day 1984, the story will end. 

The Vietnam War was the experience 
of our generation, and the lack of recog- 
nition of Vietnam veterans could well 
have been a national tragedy. Thanks, 
however, to the contributions of hun- 
dreds of thousands of caring Ameri- 
cans, and the courage and dedication 
ofa much smaller group — privileged to 
play integral roles in the effort — our 
nation has been led to a reconciliation 
with its history and an opportunity to 
capture the positive aspects of the Viet- 
nam experience. One message that can 
not be denied — as demonstrated by the 
memorial effort — is that the men and 
women who served in Vietnam have 
come of age as leaders of their countrv. 

f 

Robert Dotihck senvd iu Vieinant as ait 
Air Force ititellifience officer in 1969 He 
li an ailomey now working with a com- 
mercial real eatate deyelapmeni firm in 
Waihtngion. D.C. 



24 



THE RETIRED OFFICER • NOVEMBER 1983 



122 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much, Mr. Doubek. 
Ms. Lin. 

STATEMENT OF MAYA LIN, NEW YORK, NY 

Ms. Lin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your taking the 
time to Usten to me. 

Senator Bumpers. Ms. Lin, you have a nice, soft voice, so there- 
fore you have to hold the microphone closer. 

Ms. Lin. Okay. 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you. 

Ms. Lin. In honor of the men and women of the Armed Forces of 
the United States who served in the Vietnam War. 

This sentence is at the heart of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, 
inscribed at the apex where the two walls of the memorial meet. 

The memorial honors all those who served equally. It encom- 
passes all people who come to see it. Vietnam veterans of any race, 
rank or sex who were a part of that war are honored equally. The 
memorial, in listing the names chronologically, becomes a sequence 
in time in which the returning veteran may place him or herself, 
remembering individual memories and special friends. With one's 
own image reflected in the names, one becomes a part of the me- 
morial. It is far more than merely a list of the dead. It heals the 
living, and it is representative of all those who served. 

The names in their chronological ordering was to me the most 
realistic way to touch all those who were a part of that war or 
knew someone who had served in that war. With a name, you can 
remember everything about a person, unlike a pictorial representa- 
tion which may capture a certain person or event, which may 
speak to some people but not to others. The trouble with represen- 
tational work for this war is that unlike the Iwo Jima Memorial, 
which commemorates a specific event that people know of and can 
relate to, there was no such single event that could represent the 
Vietnam War. Furthermore, as we are witnessing today, there is 
no one single person or group that can satisfy all people who were 
involved in the war. 

The current attempt to complete the memorial three years after 
it has been dedicated, by satisfying one group, will leave the doors 
wide open for other groups that also want to be pictorially repre- 
sented, and despite the limiting clause in Senator Durenberger's 
proposed bill. Section 2, paragraph 4, that tries to prevent further 
additions after this addition, there are no real limits if there is no 
limiting principle. 

We must, if we are to prevent further changes to the design, 
adhere to the fact that it underwent the proper legislative and aes- 
thetic channels to be built, and that it was complete and dedicated 
and given over to this countiy in 1984. 

I am strongly opposed to any additions or alterations to the Viet- 
nam Veterans Memorial, however worthy. I cannot see where it 
will all end, and I can see numerous factions who will now want to 
be included, despite the preventative clause of this bill. 

Furthermore, in allowing this addition, you create the assump- 
tion that our national monuments can be tampered with by private 
interest groups years after their dedication, years after the monu- 



123 

ments have undergone the proper legislative and aesthetic approv- 
al processes in which they were built. 

The memorial has existed peacefully for five years. The number 
of visitors should attest to its acceptance. It is not the black ditch 
of shame and sorrow that critics had said it would be. Neither is it 
unpatriotic, reflecting at its apex the Lincoln Memorial and Wash- 
ington Monuments. It directs our gaze towards these two great 
symbols of our nation, and greets the visitor with the American 
flag at the memorial's entrance plaza. 

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial honors all those who served 
with dignity and beauty. It is a living wall. People react with it, 
bringing emotions and memories to it, placing themselves within 
its chronological order, and finding their own time upon the wall. 
It heals the living, and it honors all Vietnam veterans who served. 

In the simplicity of its design is its strength to honor and to re- 
member, but most importantly, to heal. As I described it over five 
years ago, the area contained within this memorial is a quiet place 
meant for personal reflection and private reckoning. All who come 
to it may bring their own thoughts, memories about friends, loved 
ones, times they remember. 

The memorial does not put forth a specific image of that war. It 
allows each visitor to bring their own thoughts and memories to 
complete the memorial. It is not a blank slate but a memorial with 
a multitude of personal human meanings. It is as much for the 
living veteran as a remembrance of those that have died. 

The addition of the three infantrymen not only produced a spe- 
cific image that some obviously do not relate to; it also confuses the 
issue between what is representative of the living and what is rep- 
resentative of the dead, and I do not know if another addition is 
going to solve that problem. I do not know how many other veter- 
ans groups will want to be represented. 

The fact that the new addition of a woman is being proposed 
only to equalize or neutralize the power of the first addition seems 
a misdirected attempt at equality for women. Is an addition to an 
addition the best and most honorable way of paying homage to the 
women who served in Vietnam, especially since the proponents of 
the addition agree that the memorial's walls pay equaJ and honora- 
ble homage to all Vietnam veterans? Does the addition of a female 
nurse statue really do all women who served in the Vietnam War 
justice? 

And if we are to attempt to include pictorially women who have 
served in the Vietnam War, what about the women who served in 
World War II? What is to stop someone from trying to add a 
female statue to the Iwo Jima Memorial? 

There is no national memorial to the women who have served in 
the wars this country has fought in, and I feel a memorial to 
women is definitely needed, but I question whether an addition to 
an addition to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is the best or most 
honorable solution. 

I have been asked to be on the Board of the National Advisory 
Committee of the Women in Military Service for America Memori- 
al Foundation, established by Representative Mary Oakar, Public 
Law 99-610, which will recognize the service of all women of the 
Armed Forces that have served our country, and I look forward to 



124 

being part of this much-needed project to build a properly placed, 
carefully thought out memorial dedicated to all women who have 
served in the Armed Forces. 

Should a memorial to the women that have served our country 
not be more than just an addition to an addition? Although those 
in favor of placing the nurse statue acknowledge that the original 
design honors equally all who served, in pursuing this addition, 
they further advance the misinterpretation of the memorial and 
threaten the peaceful sanctuary that the memorial has become by 
possibly opening the floodgates to numerous other factions who 
may want to revise or complete the memorial at a later date. 

Where will it all end? 

I urge you today to protect the integrity of the memorial by re- 
specting it as it stands, as it was built and given over to this coun- 
try three years ago. If we do not set up and abide by a limiting 
principle, then how will you be able to prevent further additions or 
alterations not only to this memorial, but to other national monu- 
ments as well? 

I urge you to follow your own preventative clause of S. 2042, but 
give it the strength it needs to withstand future attempts at alter- 
ation. Declare the Vietnam Veterans Memorial complete and that 
no further additions or alterations to the site shall be authorized or 
undertaken. 

Thank you. 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you, Ms. Lin. 

Colonel Bane. 

STATEMENT OF COL. MARY EVELYN BANE, USMC (RETIRED), 

ARLINGTON, VA 

Colonel Bane. Mr. Chairman, my name is Mary Evelyn Bane. I 
live in Arlington, Virginia, and I have lived in the Washington 
metropolitan area for a total of almost 19 nonconsecutive years. I 
retired in 1977 from a 26-year career in the United States Marine 
Corps in the grade of colonel. I never served in Vietnam, only a 
few women Marines did, and they were in Saigon, but I was in 
active service during the entire period of the war there. My career 
was in personnel management and, like most Marine officers, I had 
a variety of assignments and experiences, including two tours at 
our famous or infamous Parris Island training recruits, and an as- 
signment with the Joint Staff in France. All of my male Marine 
colleagues did serve in Vietnam, many of them more than once, 
and some of their names are on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 

I am opposed to the installation of a statue of a woman at the 
site of the VVM for both artistic and philosophical reasons, artisti- 
cally, because it is at odds with the design as well as the theme of 
the memorial. I will admit that I opposed the memorial in principle 
when it was first proposed, not the design but the idea. I felt we 
had ample memorials in Washington, and I was still ambivalent 
about the Vietnam War. But as I read more about the concept and 
purpose, particularly the determination to make no political state- 
ment and to honor equally all American service personnel who 
served in that war, I came to accept it. Any lingering doubts were 
dispelled with my first visit late on a cold, grey December after- 



125 

noon, alone except for a young man whom I was able to assist in 
locating the name of his very best buddy. The simplicity and seren- 
ity of the wall in its pastoral setting create a powerful emotional 
effect, and a soothing one. 

The essence of the memorial is now threatened by the very real 
possibility that installation of a statue recognizing a group by sex 
will instill a desire for representation on the site by other groups, 
for example. Native Americans, helicopter crewmen. Navy medics. 
The memorial would cease to be an equalizing and unifying force 
and focus attention on categories rather than unity. 

I oppose the female statue philosophically simply because I am a 
woman. This may seem unfathomable to the statue's proponents, 
but perhaps I can explain. From the beginning of my chosen career 
in what most will agree is a macho outfit, I tried hard to be the 
best Marine I was capable of being. When I was commissioned, 
fewer than 1 percent of the officers in the Marine Corps were 
female. Women were assigned to women's billets, and restricted to 
a handful of occupational specialties considered appropriate for 
women. Over the years, through the combined efforts of many, 
many people, of which I am happy to say I am one, the concept of 
how women could and should serve their country has changed. The 
huge increase in the military's population required by the Vietnam 
War hastened the changes. 

Nevertheless, in 1973 when I, then a lieutenant colonel, was as- 
signed as the Marine Corps member of a Department of Defense ad 
hoc group studying the recruitment and processing of non-prior 
service personnel, the Civil Service GS-15 chair of the group com- 
plained to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that he had not 
appointed a real Marine. 

My point here is that sex is an accident of birth. I chose to be a 
Marine and worked hard at it, and spent a career combatting dis- 
crimination based on sex. I feel every service person should be rec- 
ognized for what he or she accomplished as a soldier, sailor. Marine 
or airman. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial recognizes American 
military members for their service in Vietnam, irrespective of sex, 
rank, service, race, or occupational specialty. To single out one of 
these criteria for special recognition in the form of a statue on the 
site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial would not only violate the 
integrity of the design, but would be discriminatory. 

Thank you. 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Stoy. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE B. STOY, ARLINGTON, VA 

Ms. Stoy. Mr. Chairman, my name is Diane Bernhardt Stoy. I 
am a resident of Arlington, Virginia. I am a registered nurse and 
am currently employed as the Operations Director of the Lipid Re- 
search Clinic here in Washington at the George Washington Uni- 
versity Medical Center, a position I have held for the past 14 years. 
I am also a member of a family which suffered a loss in Vietnam 
when my first cousin, identical to me in age and in being raised in 
New Jersey, Private John S. Cartwright, was killed in action in 
May 1967. 



8A-924 



126 

My personal appearance here and my opposition to the proposed 
addition of a nurse statue is based on my position of pro-unity and 
not one of being anti-nurse, for in the last 21 years since I have 
graduated from nursing school I have been an active and dedicated 
member of the profession. I have fought tirelessly through my 
work and also through my professional writing to advance the 
nursing profession, and to gain recognition for the contribution 
that we nurses have made to the health and welfare of our country 
and our citizens. I also recognize, as so many other witnesses here, 
the unselfish and heroic contribution made by my fellow women 
who served in the war. 

Rather, my position opposing the addition of the statue is based 
on pro-unity because I do not agree with equal time and represen- 
tation for every ethnic group, religion, minority and occupation 
represented within the Vietnam veterans as a group. 

I do believe strongly that the addition of the statue would seri- 
ously erode the national unity that the memorial, I believe, has 
successfully brought behind all the men and women who served in 
Vietnam. I have painfully followed the evolution of this memorial 
since its germinal phase. I did so knowing that if and when the me- 
morial became a reality, I would have the courage to go down there 
and stand there and run my fingers over the name of my cousin 
John Cartwright on that wall. 

And although I wholeheartedly supported the choice of Maya 
Lin's design of the wall, I did have difficulty as I attempted to try 
to be an objective listener to those groups who felt the memorial, 
as set forth by Lin, was incomplete without the flag post and the 
human sculpture that depicted the heroism of the war. 

I followed that debate very closely, as did other families who lost 
loved ones in the war, and those who were fortunate to have their 
men and women return home safely. Eventually I agreed that the 
selection of Hart's three infantrymen was the appropriate human 
symbol for the memorial. I can tell you that this has taken time 
and many, many visits, alone and with my family and friends, to 
come to the point where I feel the success and the healing power 
that the wall, the flag and the infantrymen convey. 

After so much personal grief about my family's loss, and also so 
much personal internal conflict about the war itself, I have finally 
come to a point where I am comforted to know and to see and to 
feel that we have a national memorial here in Washington which 
successfully honors all who served and which promotes healing of 
our painful personal as well as national loss. 

To disturb that successful triumvirate, the wall, the flag and the 
infantrymen, by adding the nurse statue would be, in my opinion, 
an injustice to all of us. 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kilgus? 

STATEMENT OF COL. DONALD W. KILGUS, USAF (RETIRED), 

ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Colonel Kilgus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



127 

I am Colonel Don Kilgus of Alexandria, Virginia, and I speak as 
an individual, but to understand my views, you need to know both 
who and what I am. 

I am an American fighting man. For 25 years it was my privilege 
to serve in the forces that guard our nation and our way of life. 
Those words paraphrase the opening of the U.S. Military Code of 
Conduct written to guide our POWs. I am a fighter pilot. No group 
is better represented among our Vietnam POWs. The Code says I 
will keep the faith with my fellow prisoners. 

All military action is a team effort. You rely on your comrades 
and you keep the faith. When one of us is shot down or wounded, 
others keep the faith, the rescue folks, the medics, and those who 
help us from hospital to homeland. 

One last Code of Conduct phrase, I will trust in my God and the 
United States of America. The American people, too, must keep the 
faith. 

I am a career officer, a lifer, in Vietnam vernacular, and I volun- 
teered for eight missions to Vietnam, from 1964 to 1973, logged 624 
missions total, and 214 over North Vietnam. I did not have to go, 
but I kept going back for two reasons. In 1964 I worked closely with 
the Vietnamese people, saw their need, and I volunteered to return 
first because I believe in our involvement. 

Second, as more friends were lost, I felt a personal need. This 
MIA bracelet bears the name of one friend, Mike McElhanon. I will 
never take this bracelet off because it represents my personal keep- 
ing of the faith. 

So my views then are those of an American fighting man, fighter 
pilot, lifer and volunteer. 

My first reaction was that a memorial was not needed, because I 
did my duty without thought of recognition. But others needed a 
memorial. They were plucked from the springtime of their life, 
some not knowing, as I, why they went. They were citizen soldiers 
who served in combat only to return to a society that failed to rec- 
ognize or appreciate the intensity of that experience. / 

A memorial was needed, and as time has proven, it has healed 
wounds and provided all with the larger, ultimate lesson of Viet- 
nam, I did not help with that memorial initially, nor did some wno 
would now alter its message. It grew from support mostly of orie- 
term citizen soldiers who asked only that society keep the faith 
with those they send into combat, imprisonment or death. 

The memorial came to be with three infantrymen, three ethnic 
groups, and I said, hey, where is Navy, Air Force, the fighter pilot 
and my buddies with whom I had kept the faith? 

But I know now that those were shallow thoughts, for how do 
you recognize all services, groups and skills, not on a whole parade 
ground, and not by piling on the bandwagon one group at a time 
seeking separate rather than team recognition. 

You need simple symbolism, for no team member is more impor- 
tant than another. 

The foot soldier ultimately takes and holds ground, and this 
fighter pilot accepts that selection symbolizing our total team. The 
diverse backgrounds of the citizen soldiers on that statue remind 
that our military forces come from the breadth and serve at the 
bidding of society at large. 



128 

A visit to the memorial is not to see but to experience. Those not 
with us are all there, graven in the polished stone, and we have 
kept the faith, regardless of service or specialty. 

But there is a larger lesson of Vietnam that cannot fail to be 
grasped looking from single statue to simple stone: the enormity of 
the losses etched across that stone make clear what we experienced 
and what America must consider next time. 

When I saw that message, I thanked those who, by supporting 
this monument, have kept the faith with all members of our mili- 
tary team living or dead. To break the simplicity of this message is 
to break faith with the names on the wall, the contributors to its 
construction, and all who served. To add one statue, one additional 
group, however worthy, is to deny the concept of team over self 
that helped me survive. 

This June, Mike McElhanon's daughters will come to see their 
dad's name on the wall. Please do not force them to make their 
way through some supermarket of statuary that will inevitably 
slight some group and dilute the message. The memorial as it 
stands is complete, it keeps the faith, and it is enough. 

Thank you. Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Kilgus follows:] 



129 



STATEMENT 

by 

DONALD W. KILGUS 
Colonel , USAF (Retd) 

Given Before 
The Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands 
Concerning S. 2042 



23 February, 1988 



Good Afternoon. 



My name is Colonel Don Kilgus of Alexandria, Virginia. I am 
grateful for the opportunity today to share my thoughts with 
you concerning our Vietnam Memorial. Much of your 



deliberation on the bill before 
matters, but on feelings and on 
the purpose of the memorial 
served, and to all who see it, 
make no claim of representing a 
groups, many groups, in our 
evaluate my views you need to know, 
I Am An American Fighting Man. For 



you must focus not on factual 

a sense of what best fulfills 

- its message to those who 

I speak as an individual. I 

group. Yet we are all part of 

lifetime. For you to fully 

in some detail, who I am. 

25 years it was my very 



great honor to Serve In The Forces That Guard Our Nation, And 
Our Way Of Life. Recognizing your recent sensitivity to 
plagiarism, I must quickly point out that those are not my 
words. They only slightly paraphrase the opening of the 
United States Military Code of Conduct. As you know, that 
code was written following the Korean War to guide America's 
military members if, God forbid, they found themselves 
Prisoners of War. For eight years of my life I came very 
close to needing that code. Who Am I? 

I Am A Fighter Pilot. I need not remind you that no group is 
better represented among those who endured long years of 
captivity as a POW, or among those who remain - today - 
Missing In Action. The Code says, "I Will Keep Faith With My 
Fellow Prisoners..." This is merely an extension of a basic 
tenet every fighting man knows - combat is a team effort. You 
rely on your buddies, and they rely on you - You Keep The 
Faith. 

For a fighter pilot, the closest buddy is your wingman. For 
an infantryman it may be the troop protecting your flank. As 
our technology advances we place increasing reliance on those 
who ready, repair, and support the equipment on which our 
lives depend. They may not look the enemy in the eye, but 
they too Keep The Faith, insuring through long fatiguing 
hours that our equipment will do the job and help us return 
safely. When one of us is shot down or wounded, there are 
others who Keep The Faith -in the rescue role, the 
administering of medical aid, and prompt Medical Evacuation 
to more sophisticated care and ultimately to our homeland. 



130 



Combat Arms, Combat Support, and Non-Combatant participants; 
separate groups, but all forming one team that must Keep the 
Faith when America sends military forces into combat. 

Before I leave the Code of Conduct there is one last phrase, 
one that served many of my contemporaries well as they 
endured the long dark years of captivity; "I Will Trust In My 
God, And The United States Of America — " Yes, in a larger 
and most important sense, the American People are part of the 
team each American Fighting Man relies on in combat, one, and 
the most important, of those several "groups" who must Keep 
The Faith. 

Who am I? I am a Career Professional Officer; a "Lifer" in 
the vernacular so prevalent in the dialog of 15/20 years ago, 
when controversy over Vietnam was at its height. My military 
career began before Vietnam. While almost one third of that 
career was occupied with Vietnam, I had a military career 
before, and returned to other military career duties after, 
Vietnam. 



Who Am I? I am a Volunteer. I hasten to advise you that my 
wife too. Kept The Faith because I VOLUNTEEREn for eight 
separate Vietnamese tours from 1964 to 1973, and I'm still 
married to the same lady. Others who have addressed you 
represent Volunteer Groups - perhaps from a different 
perspective. They didn't have to go, nor did I. Why did I 
volunteer to keep going back? There were two basic reasons: 

First, let me describe my total Vietnam record. I have eight 
separate tours in Vietnam; 1964 to 1973. That covers trips 
from six weeks to a full year's duration. It covers duty in 
Vietnam and Thailand, in the 0-1, F-lOO, and F-105 Aircraft, 
and in every Air Force mission from Forward Air Controller 
and Weather Reconnaissance thru Close Air Support and deep 
strikes into North Vietnam; from Combat Rescue to Wild 
Weasel Surf ace-To-Ai r Missile Suppression Missions. I logged 
624 missions, 214 over North Vietnam, was credited with a 
MIG-17 probable kill, selected to participate in the Son Tay 
POW rescue mission, and was the Force Commander for all Wild 
Weasel Forces protecting our planes from surface-to-air 
missiles during the largest bomber attack in history. That 
happened in December of 1972, when our POW's in North Vietnam 
finally knew that the American people would Keep The Faith to 
secure their return. In a word, I was there, from start to 
finish. 

During my initial tour in Vietnam (1964) I was a Forward Air 
Control Pilot. I flew to remote outposts, read daily 
intelligence reports, and rubbed shoulders with the 
Vietnamese people, military and civilian, who had direct 
contacts with those who threatened their way of life. I 
learned first hand what the war was about and believed in our 
involvement. I also had the luxury of time - time to read 



131 



Bernard Fall's excellent books on the French experience in 
"IndoChina" and Richard Buttinger's superb historical study 
of the Vietnamese People; their long record .of independence 
as well as their days of Chinese subjugation and French 
colonialism. In summary, my involvement began with a 
knowledge of what the war was about and a belief that our 
assistance was needed and appropriate. I volunteered because 
I believed in our involvement in Vietnam! 

As America's involvement continued, and as more of my friends 
became fatalities, MIA, or POW's a second motivation gripped 
me - a personal need to Keep The Faith. You see on my wrist 
an MIA bracelet - the name engraved on it is Michael 0. 
McElhanon. I knew Mac personally, checked him out for the 
hazardous, volunteer MISTY mission which involved directing 
pinpoint strikes on targets in North Vietnam. One day in 
August of 1968 he did not return. I've worn this bracelet 
continuously since 1970; it's part of the baseline on my 
annual Air Force EKG. I will never take it off because it 
represents my personal commitment to Keeping the Faith with 
my comrades in arms. 

Who am I? In summary, I am an American Fighting Man, a 
Fighter Pilot, a "Lifer," an .Officer, and a Volunteer for 
VietnamService. 

I would now like to briefly describe my personal reactions as 
the Vietnam Memorial went from genesis to its existing 
presence on public land near the Lincoln Memorial. 

My first reaction as I read of the efforts for a memorial was 
that it was not needed. I had, after all, only done my duty 
there as a military member. I had volunteered for that duty, 
and to be blunt, we had lost the war! I served my country in 
uniform with never a thought of personal recognition and I 
sought none. Once, I was forced to eject from an F-105 
crippled by enemy fire over Son Tay. Losing an airplane, much 
less a war, is a very personal thing. I never felt bailing 
out was a "Red Radge of Courage" to be held high or bragged 
about. Rather I tended to wish I had done something a little 
better to avoid the loss. In any event I preferred not to 
talk about it. However, I gradually came to realize that 
others could never share that view. They needed to talk about 
their Vietnam experience and they NEEDED a Memorial. Who were 
they? 



They were the ones who were plucked from the springtime of 
their life to serve in difficult circumstances. Some did not 
know, as I did, why they were there. They had not chosen the 
military as a career. By volunteering for the military, or by 
answering their nation's call to arms, they epitomized the 
best aspects of our nation's traditional reliance on the 
citizen soldier. They served in COMBAT, only to return to a 
society that failed to realize the intensity of that 
experience - one that inevitably changes its participants for 



132 



the rest of their H ves 
appreciated. 



The returnees were not recognized or 



Yes, a memorial was needed, to recognize those Citizen 
Soldiers and, as time has proven, to heal wounds and to 
provide our society with the ultimate "Lesson of Vietnam." I 
did not help with that memorial, nor was it initially 
sponsored by our US society, hy our Congress, or by those who 
would now add to its message. Rather, it grew in large 
measure from the support of one-term soldiers. Citizen 
Soldiers who asked only that our Society Keep The Faith with 
those they send forth to face combat, imprisonment, death, or 
at least a totally life changing experience. At the minimum 
those citizen soldiers felt a need to Keep The Faith with 
their buddies who did not return. 

The Memorial came to be. A flag and statuary was added. Again 
my initial reaction was not positive. Three infantrymen from 
three ethnic groups. Where was Army, Navy, Air Force? Where 
was the fighter pilot who had given so much? Where were MY 
buddies with whom I had Kept The Faith? 



Shallow reactions as I came to realize. How do 
pilot? Put a G-suit on his statue and you mark 
pilot. Then where is the tanker pilot 
precious gas to return from the mission? 
team, the buddy you relied on though his 
Combat Support. Then too, where is the 
crew, those whose motto is "That Others May 
brought me home one day when the alternatives 



you honor the 

him a fighter 

who gave you the 

He was part of the 

mission was "only" 

rescue helicopter 

Live." They 

were lousy - 



they were members of the team we all rely on when we go 
combat . No team member is more important than another. 



1 nto 



How do you grasp the totality of Combat, Combat Support, the 
Non-Combatants who patched me up -- all part of the team. How 
do you include all services, all ethnic groups, all skills. 
Not on one parade ground, you don't! And not by piling on the 
band wagon, one group at a time, seeking personal rather than 
team recognition. No, you need symbolism, the simplicity of a 
thought or a vista that is all encompassing. 

Do not pass judgment on this bill unless you too visit the 
memorial. You will then know that a visit is not to see, but 
to experience. Those not with us are ALL there, graven in the 
polished marble. In that respect we have Kept The Faith with 
those who did not return, regardless of their service or 
speci al ty . 

The infantry grouping represents the footsoldier, the one who 
must ultimately take and hold ground to achieve our national 
objectives when military force is invoked. Of course he needs 
my fighter pilot support in trying times, and medical aid 
when he's wounded, but I accept his presence as symbolizing 
the totality of our military forces. In addition the diverse 
ethnic backgrounds and Citizen Soldier aspects of the 
infantry grouping remind veteran and civilian alike that our 



133 



Military force?; come from the breadth, and meet danger at the 
bidding of society at large. 

This is the "Lesson Of Vietnam" that cannot fail to be 
grasped by the viewer who looks from the statue grouping 
toward the wall; the enormity of the losses etched across 
that wide spreading wall -- losses that are worthwhile in the 
pursuit of great ideals, but whose potential must be 
understood by the public at large before we ever again demand 
such sacrifice, either from citizen soldier or lifer. When I 
saw THAT message, I humbly give great credit to those who, by 
persisting in constructing this monument have said to ALL 
members of our US Military Team, living, surviving, missing 
or dead, "We have kept the faith." 

To break the simplicity of this monument and thus the power 
of its message is to Break Faith with those whose names are 
graven on the wall or who contributed to its construction. At 
This point to add one statue, representing one additional 
group, however worthy their participation in Vietnam may be, 
is to detract from the simplicity of the monument that makes 
its message so clear. It is also to deny the concept of team 
over self that enabled so many of us to survive the rigors of 
combat . 

This June Mike McElhanon's daughters will visit Washington DC 
for the first time and I am prepared to show them where their 
Dad's name is graven on the memorial wall. Please, don't make 
a decision on this bill that will force. them and future 
visitors to make their way through some supermarket of 
statuary that will inevitably leave out some crucial 
contributors to the combat team and dilute the purity and 
impact of the Memorial's message. To do so would Break The 
Faith with those who served so well and gave the American 
People their last full measure of trust. 



The Vietnam Memorial as it stands is complete 
Faith. It is enough! 



it Keeps The 



134 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you, Colonel. 
Ms. Mastran? 

STATEMENT OF SHELLEY S. MASTRAN, GREAT FALLS, VA 

Ms. Mastran. My name is Shelley Mastran. For the last 15 years 
I have been an Associate Professorial Lecturer in Geography at the 
George Washington University and the University of Maryland. 
My specialty is the American cultural landscape. In recent years a 
main focus of my cultural landscape course has been the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial, its design, its purpose and its impact. Hence, I 
have experienced firsthand the attitudes of the post- Vietnam gen- 
eration toward the Memorial. I myself am of the Vietnam genera- 
tion, and my husband is a Vietnam veteran. 

A monument is a construction designed to keep alive the 
memory of a person or historical event. It enhances our awareness 
of the past. It reminds us of another community to which we 
belong, and thus provides a sense of cultural continuity and pur- 
pose. A monument thus functions in a sjnnbolic way. It communi- 
cates the importance essence of the person or event memorialized. 

The most successful monuments, therefore, are the most sjrmbol- 
ic or abstract. The more specifically representational or literal the 
monument, the less likely it is to survive the passage of time and 
speak to subsequent generations. 

The Vietnam Memorial is the most successful memorial in the 
United States in terms of eloquence of expression, number of visi- 
tors, constancy of visitation, and of course, the emotion generated. 
The memorial has become truly hallowed ground. 

To add a statue of a female nurse to the memorial will compro- 
mise not only the integrity of the memorial, but also the cause of 
women. The memorial as it now stands is for all men and women 
who served in the war; the names of all who died, including the 
eight women, are on the wall. The infantry statutes represent 
the essence of those who fought and died. Thus, the monument 
speaks S5niibolically, reminding us of a special community of men 
and women of the past and the event in which they were involved. 

To add a statue of a woman nurse will destroy that unity and 
homogeneity that the monument now conveys. Adding a statue of a 
female nurse will represent a Disneyfication of the landscape, sug- 
gesting a theme park with a statue for each of the subpopulations 
who contributed to the war. The symbolization that the monument 
now achieves would be lost. 

The women who served in Vietnam deserve to be honored, but to 
add a statue of a female nurse to the existing memorial is clearly 
an afterthought, would be perceived as such, and therefore is actu- 
ally demeaning to the role of women. 

Furthermore, the nurse's statue would necessarily be separate, 
suggesting that women played perhaps a subsidiary role in Viet- 
nam. Such a statue would seem at cross purposes with the feminist 
cause. 

Let a monument be built to honor the women who served in 
Vietnam, but not at the present memorial site. And if such a 
monument is to be built, why not also represent the women who 
fought their own battles at home, the mothers, the wives, sisters 



135 

and daughters of the men who fought and died 12,000 miles away. 
They also serve who only stand and wait. 

Thank you. 

Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much. 

Colonel Bane, to add a little levity to this, you know, those of us 
who were in the Marine Corps do have a tendency to be a little 
arrogant. 

Colonel Bane. I have never noticed. 

Senator Bumpers. You know, the best way in the world to get my 
children to leave my house is to start telling war stories. They have 
no interest in hearing it. 

But Colonel, there is a man who was a liaison for the Navy to 
the United States Senate and later became Senator McCain from 
Arizona, and he is just as arrogant about being a Navy pilot, and 
as you know, he spent seven years in Vietnam in prison, and we 
used to batter each other — you know how the Navy and Marine 
Corps feel about each other. And so one day I said, John, did you 
ever hear the story about 10,000 gobs laid down their swabs to fight 
one sick Marine, and 10,000 more jumped up and swore it was the 
best fight they had ever seen? 

He said, yes, I heard that. He said, you do not understand. Dale. 
He said, I really wanted to be a Marine, too, but they would not 
take me because my folks were married to each other. [Laughter.] 

That comes under the category of things I wish I had thought of 
first. 

First of all, I want to say to all of you, as well as all of those who 
preceded you, that you have spoken about as persuasively in behalf 
of your cause as I have ever heard in the 13 plus years I have been 
in the Senate, and so I compliment you on your preparation, and I 
also certainly understand and applaud your very strong feelings on 
both sides of the issue. 

It is a very difficult thing. I might say to you that when a bill 
has 52 co-sponsors and there are only 100 Senators, that will give 
you some idea of what is going to happen with this bill. 

But, Ms. Lin, I want to especially extend my personal thanks and 
gratitude to you for what I think is the most powerful memorial in 
Washington. 

[Applause.] 

Senator Bumpers. I promise you that the feeling of all of us on 
both sides of this issue does not in any way diminish our respect 
and gratitude to you, and I am very pleased you could be with us. 

And with that, let me ask you this. What is wrong with just two 
square feet out of 2.2 acres? If you knew that was going to be the 
last addition or alteration to this memorial, would that change 
your thinking in any way? 

Ms. Lin. Before I answer that, I guess I have been talking, I 
guess, to a couple of congressional aides, and I asked them how 
much faith could I have in your preventative clause, and two re- 
sponses were, well, what Congress says this year they can unsay 
next year, at which point, in answer to your question, I just do not 
know if a preventative clause is going to work if it is a matter of 
after this one, then it will be okay, because there is no principle on 
which you are limiting yourself except having the faith in that 
clause. 



136 

I just do not know. And I am very concerned, as you know, about 
the flag issue and the fact that in order for them to have gotten 
those signatures, they have sometimes said, maybe — they have not 
made it clear that there is a flag on site. I have made it clear to 
some of the aides in Durenberger's office that the wording in Sec- 
tion 2, paragraph 4 would be added "or alterations" and that it 
should be changed from "should" to "shall" which would make it a 
little bit stronger. 

But I just do not know how strong it really is when it is pretty 
much after this, you know, sort of a thing. 

Senator Bumpers. In all fairness, Ms. Lin, it does not make any 
difference. I have learned, how powerful and strong you make the 
language. Congress, if they feel like undoing it, they will undo it, 
and there is not anybody in the Senate that can give you any as- 
surance that this will be the be-all /end-all of the Vietnam Memori- 
al if the statue is added. 

Ms. Lin. I am very concerned because, as someone called me up 
last week quite well intentioned, another woman, and said, well, I 
have heard about the nurse statue, and maybe I do not quite agree 
with this, but I would really like to see a 24 hour armed, full dress 
honor guard salute marching up and down the walls. And she was 
extremely well intentioned, and she was very well meaning, and 
she truly cared for and liked the memorial. And I spent 20 minutes 
on the phone talking to a complete stranger as to why that would 
not be appropriate and how, just because we would want to see this 
or we would want to see that, that does not make it good, or the 
American public and the memorial, which now owns it, and the as- 
sumption that is being put forth is one that we can go and alter 
and change. 

Even if the cause is worthy, I just do not know if that is good 
policy. 

Senator Bumpers. You heard Mr. Brown testify on behalf of the 
Fine Arts Commission. Let me say that one of the things that does 
concern me a little bit about this, and it has nothing to do with the 
correctness of this, but Congress has obviously recognized a long 
time ago that it ought not to involve itself this deeply in design 
and location and additions and deletions and so on. TMs was admit- 
tedly a shifting of responsibility so we would not have to face the 
responsibility, and I can tell you that nobody in the Senate wants 
to offend a single woman in the country by voting against this. 

But one of the reasons we voted a long time ago to set up both 
the Capital Planning Commission and the Fine Arts Commission 
was in recognition that as politicians we have a tendency to be 
cowards. I used to say you can take ten people and bring them to 
town and drive a bunch of politicians all over this Hill. 

And the precedent of ignoring both of the Commission's feelings 
about this disturbs me just a little bit because, as I say, if Congress 
is going to start injecting itself into every decision, then you and I 
both know what that may mean, every constituent group. 

But let me ask you this question. Can you conceive of the addi- 
tion of this statue of a woman, honoring the 8,000 or 10,000 women 
who served there, can you conceive of that diminishing anybody's 
experience at that memorial? 



137 

Ms. Lin. I think it will begin to make people read that now that 
there are two categories represented, why is not a third, and why is 
not a fourth. And if you accept just one, then that one group will 
stand for the whole, but if there are two groups standing for the 
whole, you have sort of blown the game in the sense that now you 
are going to have a third. I just cannot see how that is not going to 
happen, especially if the Native American group has already re- 
quested. 

That is part of the problem of this addition. 

Senator Bumpers. Do you consider yourself a feminist, Ms. Lin? 

Ms. Lin. Absolutely. I am probably 

Senator Bumpers. Well, I live with one. You do not have to 
apologize. 

Ms. Lin. I do not know, I have talked to a lot of the people, and 
they have pretty much said if Hart's statues had not been there, 
we would not be doing this. To me, in a way, that looks like a tit 
for tat, you know, and I just do not know if you really equalize the 
situation by reducing sort of the game with national monuments 
into this tit for tat situation. I question that. 

Senator Bumpers. Do you think if we were going to do this it 
would have been better to have had the woman with the three men 
to begin with, as a part of that statue? 

Ms. Lin. Yes. From what I had seen of the first edition of the 
three men, actually, they had changed the statues from an earlier 
edition since it did not agree with all races or whatever. I think if 
you were going to do something — I guess one of the resisons I have 
been mentioning this limiting principle, I am asking that the limit- 
ing principle be the fact that it has been dedicated, it was com- 
plete, it went through the Fine Arts Commission and it was finally 
dedicated and given over to the country in 1984. That is a very 
strong ground for limiting any more additions. 

If you do it now, whether — I think there was a mention before 
that the Oakar bill is sort of a catch-all for all previous wars. Well, 
I mean, three years, five years, ten years, it is all in the past, in a 
way. I was hoping we could step into the present and work very 
hard at building a proper memorial at this point for women, be- 
cause I really could not see someone going back to the Iwo Jima 
Memorial and placing down a woman. I do not think that would be 
effective, I do not think it equalizes out the situation. 

Senator Bumpers. I may stand correct on this, but I do not think 
there were any women on Iwo Jima until after that battle was well 
over. 

Ms. Lin. Right, but Iwo Jima to me represents, when I see it, the 
memorial to World War II servicemen. 

Senator Bumpers. It represented to me a scared Marine who was 
on his way to Japan. 

Ms. Lin. But that is the image put forth of our service for World 
War II veterans, or that is the one that I grew up with through 
childhood. 

Senator Bumpers. Let me say one other thing, Ms. Lin. 

You know, this is not — I do not see this as a feminist issue. I see 
this as a simple case of immortalizing people who served their 
country. I think feminists would generally applaud it simply be- 
cause they want women to be recognized, and as has been pointed 



138 

out by one of the proponents, they want children to know that 
women have very essential roles to fill in our society, including in 
the military. 

Colonel Bane, as I say, this is a little bit off the mark, but do you 
favor women being placed in combat? 

Ck)lonel Bane. Not in the Marine Corps. No, sir, I do not. 

Senator Bumpers. It is okay for the Navy and Army? 

Colonel Bane. That is right, the Navy and Army can have them 
if they want them. 

No, considering the overall mission of the Marine Corps, which is 
the only service I really know very well, I cannot — you know, I 
think that it would be such a drawdown on the ability to carry out 
the mission that it would be self-defeating. 

Senator Bumpers. Let me ask this question, and let me suggest, 
Ms. Mastran, that you answer this question. 

If you knew that this was going to be positively the last addition 
ever to the Vietnam Memorial, would you oppose it? 

Ms. Mastran. Yes. 

Senator Bumpers. You would oppose it? 

Ms. Mastran. Yes. 

Senator Bumpers. You agree with the Fine Arts Commission 
when they said they think the thing is complete now? 

Ms. Mastran. Yes, definitely. 

Senator Bumpers. Let me just ask you the question, what is 
wrong with taking up a couple of square feet out there for a statue 
of a woman, 10,000 of whom served there? 

Ms. Mastran. The issue is not square feet. You are not just 
taking two square feet, you are erecting a statue that is visible for 
many feet, for a considerable distance. And again, what everyone 
has already said here on this panel, it is not feet, it is sjnnboliza- 
tion of the monument that would be compromised. 

Senator Bumpers. If you visited this memorial, would the pres- 
ence of that statue somehow or other diminish your experience 
there? 

Ms. Mastran. I thought about that very thing, and I visited the 
memorial this Sunday, again, and I thought about — I tried to imag- 
ine that statue there, and tried to put myself in that mode, and 
yes, I believe it would detract. 

The wall itself is extraordinarily powerful. An3rthing that would 
pull the eye or pull the crowd away from that wall 

Senator Bumpers. Including the statue of the three men. 

Ms. Mastran. Well, the statue of the three men I have always 
had difficulty with, but to put a third focus of attention there will 
diminish the wall. 

Senator Bumpers. Now we are in a fight about where the flags 
are going to go. 

Ms. Mastran. Oh, please. 

Senator Bumpers. Well, I do not know. I cannot speak when 
there are 236 Members of the House who have already co-spon- 
sored that. It is very difficult to know what might happen, but I 
must say, I cannot imagine that bill passing. 

You are all strong patriots, and you love your country dearly, 
and I think people here on both sides of the aisle are probably op- 
posed to that bill. 



139 

Well, I will not prolong this. I have enjoyed it. It has been very 
edifying to me, and I appreciate the time you have taken to come 
and present your views to us. Ms. Lin, we are especially pleased to 
recognize you this afternoon, and Mr. Doubek, for the magnificent 
work you did in preparing the monument. 

Thank you all very much. 

We will stand in recess until the call of the Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the hearing adjourned.] 

[Statement of Senators Cranston and Mikulski and Congressman 
Stark follow. Due to the voluminous nature of the other materials 
submitted they have been retained in subcommittee files.] 



140 



statement of 
Senator Alan Cranston 
before the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests 

February 23, 1988 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as a coauthor of 
S. 2042, I am delighted to appear before you today to urge your 
Subcommittee and the full Committee to report this legislation favorably 
in order to authorize the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project (VWMP) to 
establish a statue of a woman Vietnam veteran at the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial (VVM) in Washington, D.C. I congratulate the Chairman for 
scheduling this hearing in such a timely manner — just as he said he 
would last December. 

I am delighted to note that S. 2042 is now sponsored by 5w members 
of the Senate. 

The goal of the VWMP is to recognize the sacrifices and 
contributions made by women who served in the Vietnam conflict and to 
educate the public about the role of these women. As a charter member 
of the VWMP Congressional Advisory Panel, I have great admiration and 
respect for the commitment, effort, and fine work of the individuals 
associated with the VWMP in working to attain their goal. 

As the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I know that the 
women who served in and with our Armed Forces with honor, strength, and 
commitment are often overlooked when our Nation recognizes its veterans. 



141 



And women veterans are stifl much less likely than their male 
counterparts to use veterans' benefits such as home loan guaranties and 
VA health care — in part because they are not aware that such benefits 
are available. Many women veterans do not realize that some of their 
stress-related symptoms may^haye been caused by their service in 
Vietnam. I believe that the VWMP proposed statue by acknowledging the 
sacrifices made by women during the Vietnam conflict would accelerate 
the healing process for the women who served their country during this 
very difficult time. 

Unfortunately, the efforts of supporters of the VWMP to complete 
the WM with a statue of a woman veteran have been stymied. Late last 
year. Secretary of the Interior Donald P. Hodel endorsed the VWMP 
proposal and concluded that it was authorized by Public Law 96-297, the 
law providing for construction of the WM . With the support of 
Secretary Hodel, every major veterans' organization, including those who 
are testifying before the Subcommittee today, and many members of 
Congress, the VWMP proposal was presented to the Commission of Fine Arts 
(CFA) for consideration. Despite the very strong support for the 
project, on October 22, 1987, the CFA rejected it. 

CFA Chairman J. Carter Brown, in a letter to Secretary Hodel 
explaining the CFA's rejection of the VWMP's proposal, said "the 
Commission believes that any added elements such as the proposed statue 
will have the appearance of an afterthought". I disagree. 



142 



since I began working with the VWMP, I have been impressed by the 
project's dedication to ensuring, through careful planning, that the 
addition of the proposed statue would complement the existing Memorial. 
The bronze statue proposed by the VWMP is similar in appearance and 
demeanor to the statue of the three combat soldiers already in place at 
the Memorial. The proposed placement of the statue at the end of the 
Wall opposite to the end where the existing statue is placed, would, as 
Secretary Hodel has pointed out, provide a sense of completion and 
balance to the Memorial, allowing visitors to walk in a full circle as 
they visit the different elements at the Memorial site. 

Mr. Brown has further said that women are recognized through the 
symbolism in the statue of the combat soldiers and by the inscription on 
the Wall of the names of the eight women who died in Vietnam. I do not 
agree that women veterans are sufficiently represented at the WM. The 
"Three Fighting Men" statue has eloquently captured the emotions felt by 
many men who were involved in combat in Vietnam. However, because women 
were and are legally barred from combat, this statue does not represent 
the contributions made by women veterans. In addition, few visitors to 
the Wall have the opportunity to note the 8 women's names among the 
58,146 names inscribed there. A statuary representation of the 10,000 
women who served would provide a vivid reminder of the sacrifices and 
contributions made by these women during the Vietnam conflict. 

I was deeply disappointed by the CFA's shortsighted decision. It 
prompted the introduction of separate bills last year by Senator 



143 



_4- 

Durenberger and me — S. J. Res. 215 and S. 1896 — with the common goal 
of authorizing construction of the VWMP proposed statue but providing 
for different approval processes for the proposal. We have now merged 
our view points and developed a new proposal which resulted in S. 2042. 
As I proposed in S. 1896, S. 2042 includes the CFA in the approval 
process. I believe that bypassing the CFA, which has advised the 
President, Members of Congress, and various governmental agencies on 
matters pertaining to the appearance of Washington since the Commission 
was established by Congress in 1919, would send the wrong signal as to 
the value and merit of the proposed statue. 

S. 2042 would also provide a timetable for the approval process. 
Under this measure, the Secretary of the Interior would be required 
within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this act to decide 
whether or not to approve the design and plans for the project. Should 
the Secretary fail either to approve or reject the plans within that 30 
days. Secretarial approval would be considered, by operation of law, to 
have been given, and the VWMP proposal would be forwarded to the Fine 
Arts and National Capital Planning Commissions. Then, under the bill, 
if either Commission failed to report to the Secretary their approval or 
rejection of the proposal within 90 days after the plan is submitted to 
them, the approval of one or both of the Commissions, as appropriate, 
would be deemed, by operation of law, to be given. 

Our bill further would express the sense of the Congress that 
establishment of the VWMP is a fitting and appropriate way to help 



144 



complete the process of recognition and healing for the men and women 
who served in the Vietnam conflict. In addition, the bill expresses the 
sense of the Congress that establishment of the statue is well within 
the scope of Public Law 96-297 and that the Secretary of the Interior 
and the Commissions should give weighty consideration to the sense of 
the Congress that a statue of a woman Vietnam veteran should be 
constructed at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial site. 

S. 2042 also expresses the sense of the Congress that with the 
addition of the VWMP statue the Vietnam Veterans Memorial would be 
complete and that no further additions to the site should be authorized 
or undertaken. This provision should help alleviate concerns expressed 
by CFA Chairman Brown that the VWMP's statue would become the first in a 
long string of additions to the VVM. I believe that with the addition 
of the servicewoman the WM would fulfill the original intent of the 
authorizing legislation enacted to honor the dedication and sacrifices 
of the women as well as the men who served on behalf of this nation 
during the Vietnam conflict. If your Subcommittee believes it would be 
appropriate and desirable, I urge that you seriously consider converting 
this sense-of-the-Congress language into a statutory direction as to the 
completeness of the WM with the addition of the VWMP statue. Both 
Senator Durenberger and I would strongly support such a statutory 
direction. 

Finally, I would like to address the issue of the commercialization 
of memorials. During the recent controversy over the VWMP, the 



145 



-6- 

copyright agreement for the "Three Fighting Men" statue — the statue 
that now accompanies the Wall — received a great deal of publicity. 
According to a November 11, 1987, Washington Post article, the sculptor 
had, as of that date, collected $85,000 in royalties from the sale of 
souvenir reproductions of his combat soldier statue. In contrast, the 
designer of the Wall receives no royalties and holds no copyright for 
that exquisite, extraordinary design. I am deeply concerned that other 
sculptors of national memorials will also seek royalties and 
commercialize memorials designed to honor individuals who have served 
our country. For example, the sculptor of the "Lone Sailor" statue 
which is now part of the Navy memorial cited the "Three Fighting Men" 
copyright agreement when he negotiated the royalty arrangement for his 
sculpture and has received $100,000 in royalties from the sale of small 
reproductions sold to raise money for that monument. 

To prevent commercialization of the VWMP statue, I strongly urge 
that the Committee consider adding a provision to S. 2042 that would 
specify that any copyright agreement for the VWMP statue must provide 
that all royalties from the sale of reproductions of the statue be paid 
to the United States Government. In the event you do so, a similar 
generic provision should probably also be added to the Commemorative 
Works on Certain Federal Lands in the District of Columbia Act, Public 
Law 99-652. 

It is my hope that S. 2042 will serve as a rallying point in our 
effort to establish a woman Vietnam veteran statue. Proponents of the 



146 



_7- 

VWMP must work together to convince the CFA and the National Capital 
Planning Commission of the desirability and merit of this project. I 
recognize that that may not be easy. But with the strong support of 
Congcess, as evidenced by the 50 Senators sponsoring S. 2042, a greater 
coalescing of support at the grassroots level, the existing support of 
every major veterans' organization, and the endorsement of the Secretary 
of the Interior, I believe agreement can be reached with the two 
Commissions on the site and plans for this most fitting and appropriate 
addition in much the same way as the original proponents of the VVM had 
to overcome and take into account similar opposition over the 
fundamental design of the memorial. 

I urge your Subcommittee to favorably report S. 2042 to the full 
Committee and to consider carefully making the modifications I have 
raised today. I offer you the full cooperation of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee and its staff as you proceed with consideration of this 
legislation. 



147 



BARBARA A. MIKULSKt 

MARYLAND 



Bnftd States Senate 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2003 



STATEMENT BEFORE THE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 



SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND FORESTS 



BY SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI 



FEBRUARY 23, 1988 



148 

MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO STATE MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR 
LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUE 
COMMEMORATING THE SERVICE OF WOMEN IN THE VIETNAM WAR. 



I HAVE SPOKEN WITH WOMEN VETERANS OF VIETNAM. I KNOW 
THAT SOME 10,000 WOMEN SERVED WITH VALOR AND DISTINCTION IN 
THAT CONFLICT. EIGHT OF THOSE MILITARY WOMEN DIED THERE 
WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY. 



TOO FEW AMERICANS REMEMBER THAT THROUGHOUT THIS 
NATION'S HISTORY, AND ESPECIALLY DURING THE VIETNAM 
CONFLICT, WOMEN SERVED IN THE MILITARY WITH BRAVERY, 
PROFESSIONALISM, AND EFFECTIVENESS. AS A MALE VETERAN SAID 



149 

RECENTLY, THERE WOULD BE TWICE AS MANY NAMES ON "THE WALL" - 
- THE EXISTING VIETNAM MEMORIAL — IF WOMEN HAD NOT SERVED 
THIS NATION WITH SUCH VALOR AND COURAGE DURING THAT WAR. 



LAST SEPTEMBER I WROTE THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THIS 
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE VIETNAM MEMORIAL. IN THAT LETTER, 
I COMMENDED THE PRESIDENT FOR SHOWING HIS SUPPORT FOR WOMEN 
VETERANS IN THE PAST. WHILE COMMEMORATING NATIONAL WOMEN 
VETERANS RECOGNITION WEEK, HE STATED: 



"IT IS FITTING THAT WE, AS A NATION, EXPRESS 
OUR GREAT APPRECIAITON TO OUR WOMEN VETERANS 
FOR THEIR VITAL CONTRIBUTION TO OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY." 



150 

I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE VIETNAM VETERANS 
MEMORIAL IS AN APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY DISPLAY OF OUR 
APPRECIATION. 



SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR DONALD HODEL IS OF THE SAME 
OPINION. LAST OCTOBER, HE PUBLICALLY SUPPORTED THE PROJECT 
AFTER HEARING FIRST-HAND FROM WOMEN VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM 
WAR ABOUT THE MERITS OF AND NEED FOR THE STATUE. 



NEXT IN LINE TO APPROVE THE PROJECT BEFORE CONSTRUCTION 
COULD BEGIN WAS THE COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS. UNFORTUNATELY, 
ITS CHAIRMAN, J. CARTER BROWN DOES NOT SEE THE NEED FOR THE 
STATUE. I MET WITH HIM IN DECEMBER TO DISCUSS HIS 
OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT. HE SAID ANY ADDITION TO THE 
EXISTING MEMORIAL WOULD DISRUPT ITS AESTHETIC INTEGRITY AND 
WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR FURTHER ADDITIONS FROM SPECIAL 
INTEREST GROUPS. 



151 

MR. CHAIRMAN, WOMEN ARE NOT A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP. 
PATRIOTISM AND SERVICE KNOW NO GENDER BOUNDARIES. I WROTE 
J. CARTER BROWN AND TOLD HIM THIS, ENCOURAGING HIM TO 
RECONSIDER HIS POSITION. I HAVE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS 
LETTER FOR THE RECORD. 



AS YOU WILLSEE FROM MY LETTTER, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT 



MR. BROWN'S INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS 



ISSUE. 



I AM NOT AN ARTIST. BUT I HAVE SEEN THE PROPOSED 
STATUE. I BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE AND IT COMMEMORATES THE 
VALOR AND SACRIFICE OF WOMEN VETERANS WHO SERVED IN VIETNAM. 
I AGREE WITH WILLIAM PENN MOTT, JR., DIRECTOR OF THE 
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, WHO BELIEVES THE STATUE OF A WOMAN 
COULD BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING MEMORIAL WITHOUT IMPAIRING 
ITS INTEGRITY. 



152 

IT'S CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE FINANCED COMPLETELY WITH 
DONATIONS, SO THE LEGISLATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WOULD NOT 
COST TAXPAYERS A SINGLE DOLLAR. 



I BELIEVE THIS LEGISLATION WILL ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF 
EQUITY AND HONOR IN THE MILITARY. WOMEN SUFFERED FROM ALL 
THE TRAUMA AND TOIL OF VIETNAM. THEY HAVE ENDURED TORMENT 
AND SHED TEARS OVER THAT WAR. THEY SHOULD BE HONORED WITH 
THE SAME APPRECIATION WE GIVE TO ALL VETERANS. 



153 



BARBARA A. MIKULSKI 

MARYLAND 



lanitd States Senate 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2003 



January 19, 1988 



Mr. J. Carter Brown 

Chairman, Commission of Fine Arts 

708 Jackson Place 

Washington, DC 20240 

Dear Chairman Brown: 

Thank you for coming to my office last month to discuss 
the completion of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial with a statue 
in, honor of those women who served in the U.S. Armed Forces in 
Vietnam. 

While we both acknowledge the power and poignancy of the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial, I believe you are wrong to 
discredit the proposed addition of a statue honoring women 
veterans who served in Vietnam. I do not believe, as you 
suggested, that 31 of my colleagues are ill-advised or unin- 
fornied in cosponsoring legislation mandating the erection of 
this statue on the National Mall. I will do all I can to 
enlist the support of my other 69 colleagues for this legis- 
lation. 

I would like to reiterate two points I made at 
our meeting. First, women are not a narrow "special interest 
group". And second, the addition of this statue honoring 
woiaen veterans of Vietnam will not "open the floodgates" and 
encourage other proposed additions to the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial. 

I hope you will reconsider your position on this issue. 
I look forward to discussing this ijatter with you again in the 
fjture. 



Sincerely, ^^„^ /^ yf 



Barbara A. Mikulski 
United States Senate 



BA;4:tpc 



154 



FORTNEY H. (PETE) STARK 
9tm District, Caupohmia 



CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20515 



COMMirmS: 

WAYS AND MEANS 

DISTRICT or COLUMBIA 

SELECT NARCOTICS 



February 23, 1988 



Hon. Dale Bumpers 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks & Forests 

SD-308 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

It would be deeply appreciated if the attached statement could be 
included in the hearing record on S. 2042. 

If you agree that the issue has merit (and I hope you do), it 
seems to me that the Park Service could proceed administratively. 
But they have been very unresponsive to my requests. I suspect 
they'd listen better to you I 



Thank you for any help you can provide 




''Pete Stark 
Member of Congress 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 




3 9999 05995 537 5 



FORTNEY H. (PETE) STARK. 
9th DtrriticT, Califomnia 



CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 



COMMITTeES: 

WAYS AND MEANS 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

SELECT NARCOTICS 



STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FORTNEY H. (PETE) STARK 

BEFORE 
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 6. NATURAL RESOURCES 
UNITED STATES SENATE 



PLEA FOR CORRECTION OF MISSPELLED NAMES ON THE VIETNAM MEMORIAL 



Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: 

There are approximately fifty names on the Vietnam Memorial wall 
which are misspelled. For the families which have seen these 
errors, it has been another heartbreak: their government didn't 
even care enough to get the name correct — the sacrifice is not 
remembered, it is distorted. 

Before we do anything else with respect to the Memorial, I hope 
your Subcommittee can find a way, either legislatively or 
administratively, to correct this final Record. 

The incredible pain that this kind of error causes is movingly 
reflected in a letter from one of my constituents, and I ask that 
her letter be included in the hearing record. The constituent, 
Patricia Bell Mitchell, has also suggested an errata panel, to be 
placed in the wall unobtrusively. If and when a way is found to 
correct the erroneous engravings, then that panel can be removed 
and replaced with unengraved stone. This seems like a most 
sensible and civilized thing to do, but the Park Service says it 
can't be done. 

I think we care enough about the memory of these fifty 
servicepersons to make sure that this final, timeless memorial is 
correctly done. 

I ask your help, either as part of the bill you are considering, 
or through your Oversight work with the Park Service. 



THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS 



o 



84-92A (160 



i